Macallan 1824 Series -new shades!

[k1ranki]

See that whisky shop are starting to push, the new Macallan varieties, Amber, Sienna and Ruby. Will be interesting to see how they quickly they sell for NAS whisky.

[Mark]

I havent heard much about the entry level Macallan Gold so i guess it isnt exactly flying off shelves, i havent been inspired to try it yet so i am unlikely to try the new Macallan Amber, Sienna and Ruby.

[drPete]

Gold is very, very, very overpriced for a very (IMHO) average dram.

I won't pay this kind of money for what could be three year old spirit with different amounts of E150a.
_________________
Talisker 18 - the rest are just details

[Fergie]

Just had a look at the Macallan 1824 series over at the Whisky shop

Macallan Amber £45
Macallan Sienna £66
Macallan Ruby £120

I know the Macallan had success with no age statement whiskies in travel retail but i would guess this was a lot of gift and impulse buyers attracted to shiny packaging.

I know when i spend £60 plus i want to know what is in the bottle, there is no reason whatsoever why they cant state what is in the bottle. If it is a limited release then you have to pay the price for rarity but these are not limited releases. When it is not a limited release as far as i am concerned Age Matters To The Price and to a certain extent age does matter to the quality.

[opelfruit]

I take it you've not tried;

Ardbeg Uigeadail - Whisky of the year
Ardbeg Corryvreckan - WWA whisky of the year
Ardbeg Day Committee - Scotch of the year
Talisker 57 deg north


all of which topped out at £65 and the lowest of which had a score of 92/100 from Jim Murray

Nothing wrong with NAS when it's done well.


...although given what Macallan are like they'll be flogging the cheapest stuff they can for the highest price, like they always do. They do however state that the new range contain NO colourings, hence why the age of the NAS (and assumed quality - BAD move) is based purely on colour.
_________________
"Too much of anything is bad, but too much good whisky is barely enough."

[Keith]

opelfruit i think all of the Ardbegs and Talisker you mention can be found under £60 and the Ardbeg Day was special limited release and i am pretty sure Fergie would have tried them all.

I do agree with what you say Fergie

[opelfruit]

indeed I'm sure they have been tried, my point being; older is certainly not better.

You're paying for the quality. Older bottles you are paying for the pleasure of the distillery keeping hold of their product for longer, well....whoopy do.

I've had pale (and clearly containing young) whiskies which blow creaking 30yo+ malts out of the water on the quality, taste and experience front, and cost 25% the price.


It's a real bugbear of mine that the majority of the UK market thinks that darker = older and older = better and therfore more expensive. Older is not better, there's just less of it.

It's a load of tosh.

Would you honestly pay more for a Macallan which has spent min 18yrs in sherry and comes out with a sulphur wazz than you would for some good cask selection and careful blending, producing a much better drink? If so then fill your boots




the fact is, no matter how well the UK takes to it, if you want a Mac then you aint got any other choice.
_________________
"Too much of anything is bad, but too much good whisky is barely enough."

[Keith]

Having tasted the Macallan Gold you are not paying for quality IMO as it is not a quality whisky and i suspect there is a good portion of young whisky in the bottle and certainly not worth its price tag. It doesnt give me much inspiration to try the rest of the Macallan 1824 series.

I have had a number of Macallan 18 year old bottlings over the years and all all been outstanding. opelfruit i guess you have been unlucky with the bottles of Macallan 18 you have had if they have all been sulphur tainted, do you recall which years the sulphur tainted bottles were from so we know to avoid them

[opelfruit]

Would have been around the middle of last year, so likely the 1992, and I dont keep my empties
_________________
"Too much of anything is bad, but too much good whisky is barely enough."

[James T]

I dont like what the Macallan has done at all and i wont be trying there new whiskies. I just hope the Edrington Group doesnt have the same plans for the Highland Park range.

[Big Mac]

I am a big Macallan fan but if they replace the age statement Macallan expressions with these no age statements in the US i think they will regret it. I will always be able to get my sherried whisky hit from Glenfarclas, Glendronach and Aberlour.

[albo]

Always entertaining when this debate comes around again.

For me, I can see both sides to this, there are some excellent NAS whiskys on the market as pointed out up thread, so there is no deffinitive older = better statement to be made. Class is class regardless of age.

However, there has to be a degree of acceptance that older whisky can and often does produce more charachterful whisky and yes it's more rare which again add's to the price. However, I've also tasted some pretty young whisky which has been far too firey and spirity. So saying that older whisky is only us paying for the distillery keeping the whisky for longer is a pretty churlish statement also. Class is class regardless of age.

I hope we can all agree that if Macallan had made this move and got the product spot on, there wouldn't be half the grumbles there currently is about the new range. The fact (debate) remains they didn't get the product spot on, which looks to the consumer like they are profiteering, offering a lesser quality whisky at a greater price and hiding behind NAS.

For the sake of the consumer, perhaps it would be better if the whisky companies were to list an age range and %age content of each in all whisky the produce (though this could lead to a rather long lable I admit).

Either that, or we can accept that each to their own and if the likes of Macallan make this move, it's up to us to buy or not buy, the market will speak for it's self.

[Creed]

I would suspect the Macallans move to no age statement whisky was partly due to the increased popularity of their whisky and lack of maturing stock to meet demand in the future. Age doesn't guarantee quality but no age guarantees Macallan more profit. If there whisky falls short of the quality whisky drinkers have come to expect from the Macallan age statement whiskies then they will have certainly shot themselves in the foot. Reading a few reviews of the entry level Macallan Gold i am certainly not inspired to buy it or try the more expensive bottlings.

If i see the new Macallans at a whisky event/tasting then i shall give it a go but there is plenty out there to entertain me without taking a chance on the new Macallans.

[McKay]

The Macallan age statement whiskies in the UK are most likely a casualty of the Macallans success and shortage of maturing stock. It will be interesting to see if they roll out the no age statement whiskies in the USA where i think consumers relate age to quality and price even more than they do here in the UK.

[k1ranki]

Creed, you are spot on. The dilema is that I can't help myself, is the Ruby going to be out of this world as Macallan try to prove a point about their latest marketing ploy!! Maybe I'll wait to read some reviews first, from those with deeper pockets than me!