Whisky Advocate

Two single malts from Park Avenue Liquor

March 14th, 2009

Old Pulteney (Cask #4931), 1990 Vintage, 57.8%, $121
Fresh, briny, and very appetizing. Mouth-coating vanilla, lightly toasted marshmallow and a kiss of honey add a soothing balance, while pineapple, nectarine, gentle spice and subtle seaweed offer intrigue. Old Pulteney has great potential if only given the opportunity. Bottling at cask strength and not chill-filtered really brings out more of the whisky’s subtle complexities. I welcome more single cask, cask-strength Pulteneys in the future.

Advanced Malt Advocate magazine rating: 86

Glenfarclas, (Cask #128), 1981 Vintage, 27 year old, 53.4%, $200
When I toured Glenfarclas in May 2008, George Grant told me that, while it is usually not their policy to stray from aging their whisky in sherry and bourbon oak casks, they have done some experimenting. One of these experiments, aged entirely in a port cask, has finally been bottled. The nice thing about Glenfarclas is that it is a rich spirit and can stand up to a good dose of port wine (or sherry for that matter). The port notes are lush, with ripe fruit (plum, red grape skin, caramelized apricot, prune) and dates compliment the whisky’s malty, maple syrup foundation. The 27 years also imparts a good dose of polished oak for balance. Not as complex as other Glenfarclas whiskies of this age, but this is certainly a solid, enjoyable change of pace for Glenfarclas.

Advanced Malt Advocate magazine rating: 85

5 Responses to “Two single malts from Park Avenue Liquor”

  1. Red_Arremer says:

    Wow! A mature port-aged Glen Farclas. I wish I had more money and lived near that store.

  2. John Hansell says:

    Yes, it is a rare beast!

  3. Todd says:

    Hey Red, Park Ave ships to many states (can’t help you with the more money part).

    I’ve tasted them both and I’d get the Old Pulteney (which I would score 89) rather than the Farclas (which I would score 84). Both are fine whiskies.

  4. Red_Arremer says:

    I’ve tasted a lot of whiskies but, for some reason, never a Pultney. I’m a huge fan of Glenfarclas, though. Anyways, I’m saving up for another expensive bottle right now so I probably won’t be able to pick either up for a few months at least. Thanks for letting me know, Todd.

  5. Ricardo says:

    I love Glenfarclas and had just tasted the 40 y.o., which I’m still going to buy.
    This was a severe disappointment. It is unbalanced in all the wrong ways. The attack is underwhelming, which I thought was Ok for a 27 y.o., but then comes this tannic wave of oak that is astringent and makes you feel like you were sucking on a stave. It felt rough rather than polished. It took a lot of water to make it palatable.
    A failed experiment, if it had worked they would have kept at it. I just wish Park Avenue Liquors would have been more honest with my daughter, who bought it for me as a gift knowing I love Glenfarclas and recommended a more mainstream Glenfarclas rather than seeing an opportunity to unload a “red headed stepchild” of Glenfarclas.

© Copyright 2017. Whisky Advocate. All rights reserved.