Macallan Cask Strength how old??

It's going to be a marriage of different casks and probably different ages. Here's a write-up off the web:

By William Loob The 2002 distillery of the year winner Macallan also owes its unique standing in the Scotch whisky world to an unwavering adherence to tradition:

And here's the pretty description from the Macallan website:

Dunno how old it is, but I do know that it's really good...and a bargain besides.

feroce

John Hansell addresses this and other related questions in an article in the current Malt Advocate.

Basically, due to varying supply and demand, many distilleries have run low on whisky from the late 80s and have to come up with alternative products. One of these is whisky blended from available stocks, but bearing no age statement because some younger stock is being used. They then seek some marketing gimmick to distinguish this somewhat generic blend, such as selling it at cask strength.

Voila! Interesting new product to take the pressure off until current stock ages into the mid-range of 12-18 years.

-- Larry

When this bottling was introduced in the USA there was some speculation about the age of the whisky on this newsgroup.

There seemed to be a consensus that the version introduced in the USA was a little better than the version previously introduced in the UK - one of those occasional times when the giant American market wasn't handicapped with the lesser version or ignored altogether because of its size and complex regulations.

There was then some speculation about the age of the whisky, but the only thing you can be sure of when a whisky has no age statement is that it is 3 years old or older - that's guaranteed by law. But as a practical matter, you can be sure that the whisky in the Macallan CS is a lot older than that: speculation was running at something like 10 yrs for the UK malt and maybe 12 for the version in the US. But it remains only speculation: opinions by people who like Macallan and are familiar with its taste profile.

As Larry mentioned, the early and mid eighties were a difficult time for the Scotch whisky industry. Quite a few distilleries closed, or were sold - some were dismantled. Those that remained open reduced their production. So now, some years later when Scotch malts are at an all time high in popularity, many companies find they don't have enough whisky of the right age to keep selling their 18 and 21 year old versions. Different companies have approached the problem differently. One approach is to sell versions without an age on the label, so over the next few years they can bottle different ages of whisky under a consistent label as the "bubble" works its way through their inventory.

I haven't tried this bottling yet, so I can't express any opinion about whether the previous speculation on its age was sound or not.

Bart

Andreas

I picked up a bottle at the Frankfurt Duty Free last week. It says Ten Years old on the bottle.

Righty-o.

The nose of the European version (10yrs; 58.8%; I think I got it at Amsterdam duty free earlier this year) is just a touch warmer, riper, and fig&apricot fruitier. The nose on the U.S. version (58.6%) is a little more spirity, and some similar sweet fruit comes through but it has to fight through the spiritiness to do so.

On the palate the U.S. version starts out dryer & lighter--it has bursts of dried fruit essences, and a touch of nice sherry warmth and sweetness, but it is a bit shorter and sharper than the European version--the spiritiness can start to eat up the finish--though a few nice, potent sherry and woody essences still manage to linger hauntingly--and enchantingly. The European version has more lush maply warmth that arrives quickly and spreads broadly over the palate, and makes for a sweeter, bigger, fruitier dram--though the gradually flattening sweet maple drifts away kind of simply at the end.

That is drinking the high proof spirit neat. Diluting with about half again as much water as spirit, the U.S. version makes it more fully up to the nose, with a single gentle burst of sherry and maple, though the finish is relatively short. The European version is again broader, filling the palate more with little waves of sherried niceness and even a little bubble-gummy tang. Though diluted whisky has it's dull-side drawbacks. I'll keep drinking both of them neat!

The European version is pretty much a lusher, warmer, sweeter, fuller experience. You could even say it is a bit more complex. Though the U.S. version is still very enjoyable as a bracing burst--a sea-splash of concentrated Macallan sherry on a bright frame, and there is still this light enchanting woodiness that stays on the palate and echoes in the nose even when you think the dram is over--it is this big, mature, lingering tone that makes it worth continuing to reach for. If I could only have one, I guess I would gravitate toward the European 10-year-old because it is more lush, and easy to appreciate. Though the U.S. version is great for a bright, potent sherry-blessed nip, with those lingering atmospherics.

The moral of the story? As usual: get both.

And--BONUS TASTING NOTES: if you mix the two together into one glass and swirl it around? It's an unpleasant mess! Those Macallan blenders really do know what they're doing.

O.K. (happy to): It isn't so.

It was two parts whisky to one part water. Just to see if there were any flavor elements there that were being obscured by drinking it neat. I didn't find any extra ones! It's back to drinking it neat for me!

Oh come on don't be a snob. A lot of malt drinkers (experienced and well known ones as well) add upto

Brett, I'd be interested in knowing which well known ones do add up to 50% water. The most I've heard of (wrt to "well known" malt drinkers) is several drops. Adding up to 50% water wouldn't allow a "well known" malt drinker to analyze a whisky so I can't see why they would do this. Additionally, "well known" malt drinkers are accustomed to the higher proof of cask strength whiskies and as such don't need to protect their palate from the burn.

Johanna

I like my cask strength diluted in round numbers to the low forties. some of those beasts have a mid six-handle alcohol content; that's up to 50%.

tastes just fine to me.

The supply that hits America is a 10yo

Two years ago I visited every distillery on Islay and all the well known "haunts". I chatted to many of the well known names and of those that I saw take a drop, all added water and many added upto what I would estimate was up to 50% in volume.

As I'm sure you know, many tasting sesssions usually follow this pattern (well the ones I've been to have)...

Try neat > Add drop of water > Taste > If you prefer it, try another drop or two and repeat Continue until you are happy!

Telling folk that X% of water is OK but Y% of water is wrong is just patronising and does nothing to encourage others to try this great drink. God forbid we should have the malt police!

In previous discussions about the "proper" glass for nosing and tasting haven't posters mentioned a Blenders Glass with etched gradations for several dilutions, all the way down to only 20% whisky? My memory may be faulty, but I seem to remember some such. I haven't googled to find out for sure.

Of course, that a blender might nose and taste whisky down to such a low dilution doesn't mean they would dilute their own whisky so much if they were drinking for their own pleasure.

Personally I almost never dilute whiskies bottled at 40%, 43%, and 46% ABV. I always taste Cask Strength whiskies undiluted, and then usually adjust them a little.

Bart

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww "May I, as a humble Scotsman (living within sight of the Auchantoshan distillery) offer the bit of advice that my father gave me...

'The best way to drink whisky is the way that suits you best.'

Never been known to fail."

----------John Daly, Erskine, Scotland in alt.drinks.scotch-whisky

This seems to be a very good approach to me. This algorythm usually results in diluting until you've put in one drop too many, but you'll know better how much to add next time.

Bart

"Malt police." It has a nice ring. Sign me up!

Every now and then when I have 3 or 4 175ml subdivided malts on hand with a couple thimble-fuls left in each, I'll mix them together into one bottle, let them sit for a week or two, and then try them. They are usually "interesting"--though sometimes in the sense of the Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

Hi Ian,

Could you tell us your source for this information? From my own head to head comparisons with other Macallan OBs, I'm pretty confident that it is no older than 10, but certainly younger, as young as 8 is my guess. The US bottling is far too spirity as compared to the 10 Year Old 100 Proof or European c/s bottling to be 10 years of age... and I'm pretty sure it would have been labelled as a 10yo if it could have been. My two cents.

Johanna