Not a member? - Register and login now.
All registered users can read our entire magazine archive.

Glenfarclas 25 or Macallan 25?

Take part in our whisky polls and votes. You can also post your own polls in this forum.

Glenfarclas 25 or Macallan 25?

Poll ended at Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:53 pm

Glenfarclas 25
13
65%
Macallan 25
7
35%
 
Total votes : 20

Glenfarclas 25 or Macallan 25?

Postby ResIpsa539 » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:51 pm

I know that the Glenfarclas 25 is about a quarter of the price of the Macallan 25. Is the Macallan 25 really 4x better than the 'farclas? Seeing as both are solely aged in sherry, I was wondering what your thoughts were....
ResIpsa539
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:29 am

Postby Oliver » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:00 pm

I'd say that the Glenfarclas 25 is far better than today's macallan 25 years old, which used to be a vintage, but no more (you shouldn't have to ask if this downgrading corresponds to the arrival of new owners and promotion of heralded and overexposed "master distillers"....)
Glenfarclas is also a better distillery than edrington's macallan when it comes to making single malt scotch these days.
When you buy a bottle of Macallan you pay for many advertising campaigns, dividends, bonuses and salaries of a large corporation who has been instrumental in making Macallan more about hype and expensive add campaigns in glossy magazines for the yuppy reader and no longer about quality and standards.
When you buy a bottle of Glenfarclas you support the only independent family owned distillery out there!
And to top it off, their whiskies are excellent!
PS: I am affiliated with neither!
Oliver
Silver Member
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 1:01 am
Location: No Longer New Orleans, USA

Postby Deactivated Member » Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:24 pm

Oliver wrote:When you buy a bottle of Glenfarclas you support the only independent family owned distillery out there!


Glenfiddich?
Deactivated Member
 

Postby ResIpsa539 » Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:52 pm

Oliver wrote:I'd say that the Glenfarclas 25 is far better than today's macallan 25 years old, which used to be a vintage, but no more (you shouldn't have to ask if this downgrading corresponds to the arrival of new owners and promotion of heralded and overexposed "master distillers"....)
Glenfarclas is also a better distillery than edrington's macallan when it comes to making single malt scotch these days.
When you buy a bottle of Macallan you pay for many advertising campaigns, dividends, bonuses and salaries of a large corporation who has been instrumental in making Macallan more about hype and expensive add campaigns in glossy magazines for the yuppy reader and no longer about quality and standards.
When you buy a bottle of Glenfarclas you support the only independent family owned distillery out there!
And to top it off, their whiskies are excellent!
PS: I am affiliated with neither!


Thanks for the great advice.
ResIpsa539
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:29 am

Postby Drrich1965 » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:10 am

I actaully have not had the 25 Farclas, but have loved the 21 and the 1961 Farclas. I have had the Mac 25, and it is a complex, wonderful malt. However, I would bet on the Farclas 25 and grab three other good bottles or so.Or, check out the 34 year old expression of Farclas at binnys, for under 200 bucks.....
Last edited by Drrich1965 on Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Drrich1965
Gold Member
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:34 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA

Postby Oliver » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:35 am

MrTattieHeid wrote:
Oliver wrote:When you buy a bottle of Glenfarclas you support the only independent family owned distillery out there!


Glenfiddich?


Correct. Glenfiddich, along with Balvenie are owned by another Grant family (they also own another distillery but only for blending --can't remember its name!) .
What I wanted to say was that Glenfarclas is the only single distillery that's familly owned. That's better :D
Oliver
Silver Member
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 1:01 am
Location: No Longer New Orleans, USA

Postby Oliver » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:38 am

AlanLaz wrote:
Oliver wrote:I'd say that the Glenfarclas 25 is far better than today's macallan 25 years old, which used to be a vintage, but no more (you shouldn't have to ask if this downgrading corresponds to the arrival of new owners and promotion of heralded and overexposed "master distillers"....)
Glenfarclas is also a better distillery than edrington's macallan when it comes to making single malt scotch these days.
When you buy a bottle of Macallan you pay for many advertising campaigns, dividends, bonuses and salaries of a large corporation who has been instrumental in making Macallan more about hype and expensive add campaigns in glossy magazines for the yuppy reader and no longer about quality and standards.
When you buy a bottle of Glenfarclas you support the only independent family owned distillery out there!
And to top it off, their whiskies are excellent!
PS: I am affiliated with neither!


Thanks for the great advice.


Glad to, Alan. Let us know what you choose, and your tasting notes. (Assuming you were contemplating a purchase...)
Cheers!
Oliver
Silver Member
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 1:01 am
Location: No Longer New Orleans, USA

Postby Deactivated Member » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:52 am

Oliver wrote:Glenfiddich, along with Balvenie are owned by another Grant family (they also own another distillery but only for blending --can't remember its name!) .


Kininvie.
Deactivated Member
 

Postby Mustardhead » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:03 am

Personally I'd buy the Macallan if I felt that I could justify the price.

I have tasted a few 25 year old malts and I have drunk a few bottles. The Macallan was the best of the lot. Only lasted two evenings :)

I can understand Oliver's concerns at the activities of the owners of Macallan, but I'd still buy the whisky...
Mustardhead
Gold Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Gloucestershire, UK

Postby Admiral » Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:31 am

I could be wrong, but the 25yo Glenfarclas doesn't seem to have as much oloroso in the vatting, so - to my palate - the 25 Mac comes out as being richer and more full-flavoured. I suspect the Glenfarclas has some fino or amontillado in the vatting, so whilst it is still a delicious whisky, it doesn't seem as sweet when compared to the Mac.

Having said that, I think the oloroso-casked Glenfarcli are amongst the finest whiskies going around.

Cheers,
Admiral
Admiral
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Australia

Postby Di Blasi » Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:32 am

I've had the 25y Anniversary Macallan, very nice, but I much prefer to spend less, on an equally good whisky, like the Glenfarclas 25y, an excellent distillery I prefer.
Di Blasi
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:16 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Postby si_peacock » Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:28 pm

'Farclas every time I'm afraid.

I like M but can't really justify the cash for the 25YO when Glenfarclas hits the spot with me most of the time.

Si
si_peacock
New member
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Oliver » Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:44 pm

si_peacock wrote:'Farclas every time I'm afraid.

I like M but can't really justify the cash for the 25YO when Glenfarclas hits the spot with me most of the time.

Si


Yeah, I think this is the gist of it. Edrington has priced Macallan out of reach of most malt afcionados... They're target? Basically yuppies. Hence the new $9,000.00 Macallan in a lalique bottle. Bargain alert! :P
Oliver
Silver Member
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 1:01 am
Location: No Longer New Orleans, USA

Postby Di Blasi » Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:35 pm

Oliver wrote:
si_peacock wrote:'Farclas every time I'm afraid.

I like M but can't really justify the cash for the 25YO when Glenfarclas hits the spot with me most of the time.

Si


Yeah, I think this is the gist of it. Edrington has priced Macallan out of reach of most malt afcionados... They're target? Basically yuppies. Hence the new $9,000.00 Macallan in a lalique bottle. Bargain alert! :P


Yup, I agree Oliver! Macallan is the Rolls Royce of Single Malt Scotch, for those that can afford it. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the best cause of the high price, or if one drinks it, you love or know good whisky, just that you can afford it! Many seem to pour it over the rocks anyway.
Di Blasi
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:16 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Postby si_peacock » Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:38 pm

Ahhh, the city bonus bods...

I used to go into Boisdale quite alot in Victoria in London. Great restaurant and whisky bar. They had a bottle of wine for £10k. BUT, you had to pre-order it as they kept it off-site.

I kept telling them that it was an impulse purchase for someone who'd got a huge bonus and that very few people would ring up and pre-order a bottle of wine for £10k but would they listen?

It is a real shame when whisky is intentionally priced outside the potential of the real enthusiasts. It's different when they go up in value due to closure or scarcity. That's fine. But intentionally going for a value way in excess of anything we could ever purchase...
si_peacock
New member
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Oliver » Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:16 pm

Di Blasi wrote:
Oliver wrote:
si_peacock wrote:'Farclas every time I'm afraid.

I like M but can't really justify the cash for the 25YO when Glenfarclas hits the spot with me most of the time.

Si


Yeah, I think this is the gist of it. Edrington has priced Macallan out of reach of most malt afcionados... They're target? Basically yuppies. Hence the new $9,000.00 Macallan in a lalique bottle. Bargain alert! :P


Yup, I agree Oliver! Macallan is the Rolls Royce of Single Malt Scotch, for those that can afford it. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the best cause of the high price, or if one drinks it, you love or know good whisky, just that you can afford it! Many seem to pour it over the rocks anyway.


Yeah, and here's my fear: that other groups will try to transform some distilleries into brands a la macallan. Concretely this will mean much higher prices... imagine, you are outside the whisky bar (and its raining :wink: ) watching stock brokers order a Macallan 30 on the rocks with a twist of lime. Oh, the horror :P
But I thinkArdbeg is moving in that direction, but perhaps I am wrong... Is the Balvenie" looks like Highlan Park is following that path.... Any toher candidate for the luxury good guillotine ?!?
Oliver
Silver Member
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 1:01 am
Location: No Longer New Orleans, USA

Postby Mr Fjeld » Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:57 pm

It's an interesting thought Oliver - and to some extent I think you are right about such a long term strategy from LVMH. Why wouldn't they when they are a luxus niche provider? I don't know how it will affect Ardbeg in the future but I think most producers will think twice before they move their single malt brands up the prestige ladder for several reasons;

1. Consumers in the upper segment are infamous for being disloyal - whatever is hip counts more than brand loyalty. The in-crowd is not large enough to guarantee profits.
2. Why make it costlier and less available when single malt is perfectly suited to the new and emerging middle class of the BRINC countries. The price of single malts - and blends for that matter - will inevitably increase a lot in the future so it's fair to say that the market itself will take care of the "prestige hike".
3. point three has to do with number two; there will not be enough single malt in the future to cater for all emerging markets - the prices are going up as we speak and "we ain't seen nothin yet" .

Macallan has done well for themselves as brand managers and in many ways they've exploited a niche in the market. They are not trying to make money on the single malt enthusiast like us - they are going for the ones doing "brand shopping" who has to have "the best of everything" . People like that are not informed by the enthusiast communities but from other sorces such as clever marketing. I imagine such a person would look a lot like Patrick Bateman...... :wink:
Mr Fjeld
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:08 pm

Postby lbacha » Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:21 pm

I beleive Macallan is taking advantage of the situation they are in. They have alot of customers that like their product and are willing to pay a premium price for it. This is evident where I live because Macallan 12 and 18 are almost always sold out at the local liquor stores (This may be part of the reason the price point is high) and if you go into a bar you are very likly to find the 12 and 18 behind it (Sherry cask that is). If I owned the business I would take advantage of that popularity and prestige value and price my product accordingly. I've heard many different issues with Macallan and the one that concerns me the least is the price point of the product. If you are upset with the company because of the vintage bottles incedent then ok, that is understandable. If the reason you are upset is because they changed their product line then that makes no sence. It happens everyday. Change is inevitable, I spend every day teaching people in business this and you would be amazed at how many of them still are against it and fight it to the detriment of their companies. The whisky industry is a business, I hope a couple companies compete with Macallan in the premium malts market because that is what will keep the prices down, not up. If the consumer has the choice between 2 malts that are considered premium (by who's standards they are premium I'm not sure) then that will actually keep the price down. The fact that Macallan is the only distillery that is discussed in this much depth tells me they have a corner on the market segment of consumers that want a high end available malt.

Just my thoughts

Len
lbacha
Gold Member
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:14 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio USA

Postby lbacha » Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:23 pm

Sorry about straying from the original question. I actually havn't tried the 25 yr old Macallan but I have had the 25 Glenfarclas and it is excellect whisky and for the price I would take it anyday.

Len
lbacha
Gold Member
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:14 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio USA

Postby Oliver » Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:30 pm

Mr Fjeld wrote: People like that are not informed by the enthusiast communities but from other sorces such as clever marketing. I imagine such a person would look a lot like Patrick Bateman...... :wink:


Oh, Bateman! Not a very secure customer-base now is it? :wink:

More seriously I think you make some good points Christian, but here's one that militates against such a move: putting the MAcallan in the luxury goods sections makes the brand vulberable to a recession -- more so then more moderately priced malts.
Also, it somehow leads to lower sstandards for the more resonably priced offerings. Did you notice the decanter boasted containing malt made out of "golden promise barley". No so long ago. a regular 10 year old MAcallan was made with Golden Promise!

Didn't Bateman drink mostly diet pepsi? I really like the analogy though; I think you are right on!
Oliver
Silver Member
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 1:01 am
Location: No Longer New Orleans, USA

Postby Sherried Malt » Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:34 pm

Oliver wrote:putting the MAcallan in the luxury goods sections makes the brand vulberable to a recession -- more so then more moderately priced malts.


Uhhh, that's incorrect. It's the opposite. Luxury brands are particularly recession resistant. High end consumers can weather any downturn to a much greater extent than the average man on the street. That's why companies such as Tiffany's, LVMH, Hermes, etc. all try so hard to establish and maintain their brands. The Web is full of articles discussing this topic.
User avatar
Sherried Malt
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1134
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: New York, United States

Postby Mr Fjeld » Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:47 pm

Sherried Malt wrote:
Oliver wrote:putting the MAcallan in the luxury goods sections makes the brand vulberable to a recession -- more so then more moderately priced malts.


Uhhh, that's incorrect. It's the opposite. Luxury brands are particularly recession resistant. High end consumers can weather any downturn to a much greater extent than the average man on the street. That's why companies such as Tiffany's, LVMH, Hermes, etc. all try so hard to establish and maintain their brands. The Web is full of articles discussing this topic.

But doesn't it depend on which economic purchasing power the product caters for? I'm sure the super wealthy diamond buying market won't be too affected during a recession but if you also sell to the higher middle class then you're bound to be affected. Mercedes Benz, BMW, Jaguar, Rolex and possible Macallan would be affected wouldn't you say?
The only reason I can think of where Macallan wouldn't feel the collapsing economy would be because it's such a relative scarcity in an enormous emerging global market? Or would the prices be lowered and sales kept up if recession hit? Wouldn't that leave Macallan between a rock and a hard place where they could choose between.
1. Accept declining sales and lower profits
or
2. Lower the price to keep the sales up but possibly negatively affect the brand image.
Mr Fjeld
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:08 pm

Postby Sherried Malt » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:11 am

Mr Fjeld wrote:But doesn't it depend on which economic purchasing power the product caters for? I'm sure the super wealthy diamond buying market won't be too affected during a recession but if you also sell to the higher middle class then you're bound to be affected. Mercedes Benz, BMW, Jaguar, Rolex and possible Macallan would be affected wouldn't you say?
The only reason I can think of where Macallan wouldn't feel the collapsing economy would be because it's such a relative scarcity in an enormous emerging global market? Or would the prices be lowered and sales kept up if recession hit? Wouldn't that leave Macallan between a rock and a hard place where they could choose between.
1. Accept declining sales and lower profits
or
2. Lower the price to keep the sales up but possibly negatively affect the brand image.


You raise some good points and I think it comes down to a matter of degree. I think Macallan has been sufficiently successful in establishing itself as a luxury brand to insulate itself from a recession. I don't think it takes mega-reches to afford a Macallan 12 or 18. If I recall correctly, there have been studies done on the behavior of consumers who find themselves financially strapped and the conclusion was that they will cut back on big ticket items such as extravagant vacations and new cars, but continue to treat themselves to small luxuries such $5 coffees from Starbucks. I believe Macallan falls into that latter category...

On the other hand, if we're talking about a full blown depression, then Macallan may very well find itself with some unpleasant choices. However, I don't think it will come to that, for exactly the reason you gave. The global economy is still booming (China, India, Singapore, etc.) and as they transition into an urban, consumer-driven economy, I believe they will take up any slack in demand. Case in point: high end cognacs are already extremely popular in China and Hong Kong. I don't know about Macallan though...
User avatar
Sherried Malt
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1134
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: New York, United States

Postby Mr Fjeld » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:23 am

Sherried Malt wrote: You raise some good points and I think it comes down to a matter of degree. I think Macallan has been sufficiently successful in establishing itself as a luxury brand to insulate itself from a recession. I don't think it takes mega-reches to afford a Macallan 12 or 18. If I recall correctly, there have been studies done on the behavior of consumers who find themselves financially strapped and the conclusion was that they will cut back on big ticket items such as extravagant vacations and new cars, but continue to treat themselves to small luxuries such $5 coffees from Starbucks. I believe Macallan falls into that latter category...

That makes sense Sherried Malt! I didn't think of that but if necessity dictates a change the sensible thing to do would as you say be to treat oneself in the everyday situation (I'd take the whisky instead of Starbucks though :wink: ) and skip the costly holliday instead.
The global economy is still booming (China, India, Singapore, etc.) and as they transition into an urban, consumer-driven economy, I believe they will take up any slack in demand. Case in point: high end cognacs are already extremely popular in China and Hong Kong. I don't know about Macallan though...

I bet Macallan will be popular too. I think I saw somehwere in an earlier issue of Whiskymag that the russian market has exploded and that Macallan is doing very well over there. It's an interesting future!
Mr Fjeld
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:08 pm

Postby irishwhiskeychaser » Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:39 pm

Price alone would dictate to me that the farclas is the one for me. I know both distillery profiles and they are top quality therefore I can deduct that both 25yo are top quality drams.

Glenfarclas 25yo £72.00 (yes please)
Macallan 25yo Fine Oak £195.00 or Sherry Oak£215.00 (no thanks) :wink:
User avatar
irishwhiskeychaser
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3644
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: Galway, Ireland


Return to Whisky Poll

cron

Whisky gift and present finder