Glenfarclas 105 versus Aberlour a’Bunadh

Glenfarclas 105 versus Aberlour a’Bunadh. Do you have a favourite? Have you already decided on a winner? Did you actually taste the two back-to-back to arrive at your conclusion? Does any comparison of the two simply come down to brand loyalty, or is there something objective we can measure?

If there’s a rivalry amongst the whisky producers, it would best be described as “friendly”. While the likes of William Grant & Sons and Pernod Ricard duke it out for the biggest selling single malt in the world (i.e. Glenfiddich and Glenlivet respectively), both companies know that, firstly, sales need to be considered across their full portfolios, and that their blends (e.g. Grants, Chivas, and Ballantines) are where the real volume is. Secondly, that what’s good for the category is good for everyone in the category. In other words, as long as the rising tide is floating all boats, then things are pretty rosy.

If there are rivalries amongst the brands, they’re being driven by consumers and punters, and they have their origins in the chatter on social media and in whisky forums. And so, in the Speyside stakes, we have Glenfiddich 12 versus Glenlivet 12. Over on Islay, we have Lagavulin versus Laphroaig. And for those who love their cask-strength sherry monsters, we have Glenfarclas 105 versus Aberlour a’Bunadh.

Both whiskies are cask-strength; both are natural colour; both are heavily sherried; and – in Australia, at least – both carry the same price tag of $140. (Equates to US$96 / 87 Euros / £75).  That’s what they have in common, so let’s look in detail at how and where they differ….

The Distilleries

The current Aberlour distillery was built in 1879 after its previous incarnation at a different site (established in 1826) was destroyed by fire. It was acquired by its current owners, Pernod Ricard, in 1974, although today it sits within the subsidiary company of Chivas Brothers. When operating at full capacity, Aberlour is capable of producing 3.8M litres of pure alcohol per year.

Glenfarclas took out its licence to distil in 1844, but there are strong records and evidence of illicit distillation taking place at the farm site for several decades prior to this. It was acquired by its current owners, the Grant family, in 1865. Amongst its many claims to fame, it remains one of the very few, truly independent, family-owned distilleries in Scotland, now in the sixth generation of the Grants. When operating at full capacity, Glenfarclas is capable of producing 3.5M litres of pure alcohol per year.

Geographically, both distilleries are in the same area of Speyside, roughly 10km apart from one another and both easily accessible off the A95.

The Production

Aberlour employs a reasonably fast fermentation of 50 hours, but then runs a slow distillation through its onion-shaped stills, resulting in a relatively fruity new make spirit. The stills are steam-heated.

Glenfarclas employs a slightly longer fermentation of 72 hours. The stills, which feature pronounced boil balls, are direct-heat fired by gas. The end result is a rich, oily spirit that stands up well to the spice and tannins of sherry casks.

The History

In terms of origin and years on the scene, Glenfarclas 105 has an impressive pedigree. Many decades ago, in the lead up to Christmas, George Grant – the fourth generation Grant at the helm at that time – would bottle a single cask of Glenfarclas at cask-strength and gift it to family, friends, and distillery staff for Christmas each year. These naturally became highly sought-after bottles, and in 1968, George Grant decided to release it commercially for the public and added it to the core range. Bottled at 60% ABV in today’s scale, the strength in the UK’s imperial system at that time was 105^o Proof, and hence the name Glenfarclas 105. It has thus been in the distillery’s core range for over 50 years and was, for some years, listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world’s strongest commercial Scotch whisky.

Aberlour a’Bunadh arrived on the scene in 1998. For those who’ve only stumbled across the expression recently, consider that it’s been around now for over two decades! The name “a’Bunadh” is gaelic for “the origin”.   The whisky was the brainchild of the company’s Marketing Manager, Paul Hicks. David Boyd, Campbell Distiller’s Master Blender at the time, was responsible for putting together the recipe and creating the whisky.

Both whiskies share a near-identical strength. Glenfarclas 105 remains locked at 60% ABV; each batch of Aberlour a’Bunadh varies fractionally, but is generally anywhere between 59% and 61%.

The Batches

Any continually-appearing whisky expression in a distillery’s core-range that is not a once-off or single cask release is, by definition, produced in batches. Whether it’s Glenfarclas 12yo, Glenlivet 12yo, or Aberlour 12yo, the reality is that the Master Blender is required to assemble the requisite number and types of casks several times each year for each production run and must produce a vatting that – hopefully and ideally – tastes the same as the previous one. For the majority of expressions and distilleries, this batch production is an insignificant and invisible process to the consumer, and Glenfarclas 105 is no different. Aberlour a’Bunadh, on the other hand, makes a virtue of it, with each batch being numbered and labelled.

However, it was not always this way. Whilst keen fans of a’Bunadh today pounce on the batch number and like to compare bottlings across the numbered spectrum, the first five batches were not identified or tagged as such on the label. The reference to a Batch did not appear until Batch 6 came out in 1999. At the time of writing, a’Bunadh was up to Batch 65.

The Age

In their present incarnations and, indeed, for most of their lives, both 105 and a’Bunadh have been No Age Statement whiskies. But both expressions have, at times, carried age statements for special releases or for certain markets.

For Aberlour a’Bunadh, the only release to have an age statement was the so-called “Silver Label” release. Bottled in late 1999 to mark the new millennium, it was 12 years old, with 2,000 bottles produced. Today, Chivas advises that the average age of the whiskies used to make each batch of a’Bunadh is a figure they’d prefer to keep inhouse.

For Glenfarclas 105, the story’s a bit more involved. The expression was initially an 8 years old bottling and continued as such into the early 1970’s. However, increasing demand and thus larger production runs meant that older whiskies had to be added to each batch, and thus the age statement was dropped. An age statement re-appeared on labels in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, this time declaring it to be a 10yo. However, this was again subsequently dropped when the inventory of casks needed to meet demand had to be widened. Having said that, a special batch was recently produced exclusively for Taiwan with an 8 years old age statement. For the mainstream, global release, Glenfarclas advises that the whiskies used are never younger than 8 years old, and rarely older than 10 years old. The casks used and the ages of the constituent whiskies will vary with each batch as they look to achieve the perfect balance of colour, aroma, and flavour whilst trying to hit the magic strength of 60% ABV without any dilution by water.

In addition to the above, Glenfarclas has raised the stakes occasionally at times, producing limited-edition, special age statement releases of 105. A 40yo, a 20yo, and a 22yo have all been released in the last decade. The significance of releasing a 40 years old whisky at a strength of 60% ABV should not be lost or understated.

The Casks and the Sherry

As is evident to the whiskies’ respective fans, both expressions fall into the style or category of whisky colloquially and irreverently termed “sherry monster” or, occasionally, sherry bomb. No surprise, then, that both whiskies rely exclusively on maturing their spirit in ex-sherry casks.

For Aberlour a’Bunadh, the label proudly states (and always has stated) that the whisky is matured exclusively in Spanish oak Oloroso sherry butts. Ian Logan, a wonderful colleague and a brilliant brand ambassador with Chivas, chimes in by adding that, to the best of his knowledge, the casks are always 1^st-fill.

For Glenfarclas 105, the story is again a bit more involved. Stepping back for a moment, Aberlour has a diverse range of expressions in its portfolio, with some that feature 100% bourbon-cask maturation; one or two that feature 100% sherry-cask maturation; but a majority of expressions that feature a combination of the two. In this context, one can understand why a’Bunadh feels the need to boldly declare its cask-type on the label. Glenfarclas, on the other hand, has a name and reputation as a distillery focussing on sherry maturation. Ignoring single cask releases from their Family Casks range, all of the whiskies in the Glenfarclas core range are sherried to one extent or another. In this context, 105 doesn’t need to state or differentiate its position when it comes to its casks. In the distillery’s own eyes, the stand-out feature of 105 is its strength, not its cask make-up. As such, the label doesn’t give anything away. However, Ian McWilliam, long-time friend of Whisky & Wisdom and the distillery’s much-admired Marketing Executive, advises that 105 can consist of 1^st-Fill, 2^nd-Fill, and refill casks from both European and American oak, but all ex-oloroso. Whilst the recipe is reasonably fixed (and confidential), the casks will be vatted in whatever combination produces the perfect balance of colour, aroma, and flavour – again, with a view to achieving an ABV of 60% without having to dilute with water.

The Consistency

In the case of both distilleries, variation and differences between immediately-adjacent batches are extremely minor. In other words, try a bottle of a’Bunadh Batch 60, and you’ll be hard-pressed to detect significant differences from Batch 59 or Batch 61. Similarly, a 105 bottled in 2019 won’t be too different from a 2018 release. That’s the skill (and objective) of the Master Blender.

However, the reality is that whiskies change over time. Raw ingredients change (i.e. the variety of barley used); production methods change (fermentations, still runs, and cut strengths are often tweaked and adjusted); filling strengths into casks change; and the quality and source of wood, casks, and sherry has changed tremendously over the years. As such, bottles of either expression purchased today taste notably different from their counterparts from 10, 15, and 20 years ago.

There is chatter in many whisky circles today that the present-day releases from both distilleries “aren’t as good” as they were in years gone by. Most A-B comparisons – for example, a 2001 105 with a 2019 105, or an a’Bunadh Batch 10 with a Batch 60 – seem to establish a reasonably uniform consensus of opinion. The reasons for this are logical and straightforward enough. For starters, the whisky industry was a very different scene 20 years ago. The “whisky loch” from the 1980’s gave producers a huge inventory of aged, quality casks to choose from as the 21^st century came around. European oak was more plentiful; the seasoning of the casks with sherry was a slower, more integrated process; and the scourge of sulphur had yet to fully manifest itself. More tellingly, demand was smaller: As the popularity of each brand grows and production has to increase, it follows that a greater number of casks have to be drawn upon for each batch. Where the Master Blender may once have selected the top 10 casks from a batch of 100, he was now required to pick out the top 20 or 30 from that batch of 100. Simple statistics dictates that quality can’t possibly remain constant. With the whisky loch now exhausted and aged whisky selling for significantly higher prices than was the case two decades ago, there is speculation amongst many enthusiasts today that the average age of the whisky, certainly in the case of a’Bunadh, is lower than it once may have been. But, let us be clear: That’s nothing more than consumer speculation.

The exact same forces and influencing factors have played out on the other distilleries that focus on sherry maturation – Macallan being the prime example. Fans of Glendronach are making similar observations, noting also that that particular distillery is coming into the phase where near-exclusive filling into ex-bourbon casks in the early-mid 2000’s will impact what the distillery can now offer and bottle.

The Taste

It’s at this stage that objective comparisons end and any assessment becomes more subjective and personal. For when it comes to taste, your palate is your palate, and each individual will have a different take (and preference) on the respective aromas, flavours, mouthfeel, balance, and character. However, for the sake of completeness and detail, W&W has poured a dram of each (Glenfarclas 105, purchased 2019; and Aberlour a’Bunadh Batch 50). Let’s put them through their paces:

Colour: Both whiskies have an appealing copper hue, although the a’Bunadh is a touch darker with a richer shade of amber.

Nose: Both whiskies immediately betray their oloroso sherry cask pedigree. The a’Bunadh is more intense and spirity, with lacquer and varnish notes clinging to the oak and the wine.   The 105 is softer and significantly more perfumed, bringing a more floral and grassy note to the experience.

Palate: The a’Bunadh is chewy, thick, rich and raisiny, and it oozes intense oak and oloroso. The mouthfeel is slightly cloying, but satisfyingly so. In terms of flavour, the 105 is a bit more rounded. It’s just as intense, but the flavour spectrum is a little wider – the barley malt manages to lift its head above the sherry.  The a’Bunadh is spicier; the 105 is sweeter.

Finish: The a’Bunadh is a touch tannic and the finish – whilst long, warming, and satisfying – turns a little bitter at the tail. The 105 is quite a bit hotter on the finish – more than the 0.4% difference in ABV should account for. This gives the finish a peppery/peppermint note at the front, but it’s sweeter; less tannic; and doesn’t turn bitter as the finish fades away.

Comments: Both whiskies were enjoyable drams, yet different experiences – and they each certainly delivered different flavours. Sure, they’re in the same ballpark, but they each offer their own unique highlights and peaks. I know which one I preferred, but that’s entirely personal and subjective….the elements I enjoyed and appreciated might be the same elements that the next drinker cares less for, and vice versa. For what it’s worth, I scored one 7.7/10 and the other 7.9/10, so there wasn’t much in it. Would you like to know which one I gave the higher score to? Ask me at the bar next time you’re buying me a dram….

 The Conclusion

If someone asked you what does a cask-strength, heavily sherried whisky taste like, then nominating either of these two drams would be a fine suggestion. There’s no shortage of single-cask expressions available in this category – plenty from the independents, and there’s also the Glenfarclas Family Casks releases, not to mention the single cask offerings from Glendronach.

But for a daily dram, and something that you can find regularly and commonly at most liquor outlets at a very reasonable and accessible price, the Aberlour a’Bunadh and the Glenfarclas 105 should be high on your shopping list. Which one do you prefer? Don’t answer until you’ve poured yourself a dram of each and tasted them together. Once you have, tell the world by leaving your comments in the section below

Cheers,
AD

With grateful thanks to Ian Logan of Pernod Ricard and Ian McWilliam of J&G Grant.

You may also like…

Glendronach vs Glenfarclas vs Macallan

The highs and lows of Macallan 

Laphroaig versus Lagavulin