My Glenfarclas 25 Year Old is also an older version, bottled in the early 90s. So this must be a distillate of the late 60s. On the back of the label is the name of the – presumably – long gone Belgian importer. This is – presumably – a very good whisky.
Again the nose swoons you with lovely sherry aromas like stewed and dark fruits, roasted almonds and mon chérie bonbons (both the cherry liqueur and the dark chocolate). But also oranges and a touch of mint. To make it picture perfect, the whole is sprinkled with a few drops of soya sauce. The nose is softer and rounder than the 17 Year Old.
On the palate, it’s a lot softer than the 17 Year Old and not spiced as much. A little docile, in fact, but very good. Apart from what I already got on the nose, I also discover some espresso and honey.
The finish brings out some more spice, though (white pepper) and lasts longer than with the younger brother.
Knowing that a bottle of 25 Year Old will set you back some 90 EUR, it might be a good idea to consider getting the 17 Year Old, which is just as good (imho). Having said that, 90 EUR for a top dram a quarter century old is not a bad deal either.
It would seem I linked my review to the wrong bottle... Mine was not the latest release, but a bottling from the 90's. Excuse me for linking it incorreclty to a bottling of the 70's. (I'm not that lucky).