Whisky Connosr

Glenfarclas 30 Year Old

Pine Needles

0 282

@markjedi1Review by @markjedi1

2nd Apr 2012


Glenfarclas 30 Year Old
  • Nose
  • Taste
  • Finish
  • Balance
  • Overall

Show rating data charts

Distribution of ratings for this: brand user

Glenfarclas, which is still a family company, boasts the fact that it delivers wonderful whiskies at a reasonable Price. That is the least one can say of this whisky. Matured for three decades and still only around 150 EUR. Now, let us taste!

The nose is, surprisingly enough, rather closed. My first reaction after the initial whiff is ‘the herbal mix of Maggi’! That means meaty and herbal. That is soon accompanied by dark, fruity notes such as raisins, dades and dried figs. Some caramelized oranges. A tad minty with some herbs. Pine needles! A bit waxy. Not bad, but I am not knocked off my socks either.

The attack is quite peppery (white pepper) and I get a lot of tannins (tea, woodsmoke). It is fruitier than on the nose, primarily on prunes and figs. Big sherry influence. Phew, this is a drying bloke. Midpalate, it turns rather bitter and a bit sourish à la wine vinager (although that sounds a lot worse than it really is).

The finish is long and more of the same, dying a salty death.

This is certainly a beautiful whisky, but I find the younger versions better (more fruit, less bitterness), especially the 17 Year Old. Around 150 EUR, which is a steal for a 30 year old whisky. But for that price, you can also buy two bottles of the 17 Year Old. Which is what I would do.

Related Glenfarclas reviews


maltster commented

@markjedi1, I think you are right about the 30 - it is a good Whisky but I would prefer the 17 and 21 over the 30; as a Glenfarclas fan my favourite bottles of the standard range are the 40 which is a masterpiece, the 17 and the 21. The 15 and 25 are also of superior quality but the 17 has more complexity than the 15 and the 21 is as refined as the 25 but has more power and the extra hint of smoke. I really appreciate the whole range of Glenfarclas as they offer intrinsic quality with fair prices; the only disappointment was the 175 for me; this expression is a good whisky but when I look at the price I would rather buy a bottle of 21 and 105 instead.

12 years ago 0

kian commented

I bought a bottle of this last year and was very impressed with it, by far the best in the range and probably one of my favourite malts to date. I decided to buy another bottle a few days ago , opened it today and to be honest was very disapointed with the contents. The differences between the 2 bottles are huge, it lacks the depth, richness,and those wonderfull chocolate notes which were so prominent in the previous batch. Its not that its a bad whisky - just nothing at all like the one before unfortunately. My advice to anyone thinking of buying this is - like mark stated go for the 15 or 17. I had heard that inconsistincies between batches had been resolved, judging by this most definately not

12 years ago 0