Whisky Connosr
Menu
Buy Whisky Online

Macallan Gold 1824 Series

All That Glitters Is Not Gold

0 875

@talexanderReview by @talexander

8th Aug 2013

0

Macallan Gold 1824 Series
  • Nose
    21
  • Taste
    19
  • Finish
    17
  • Balance
    18
  • Overall
    75

Show rating data charts

Distribution of ratings for this: brand user

One of the most controversial decisions by any distillery in recent years is Macallan's movement away from age-statement whiskies to no-age-statement (NAS) products. The reason for this is simple, and is affecting many Scottish single malt distilleries: there is not enough old stock on hand to keep feeding a growing appetite for single malts. Macallan is the #1 most highly sought after single malt at auctions, and has achieved a massive cult status in Asia (and elsewhere). Of course you can still buy Macallan 10, 12, 18 etc almost anywhere, but these will slowly phase out, with older expressions reserved for the luxury market. Personally, I find this very unfortunate - good whisky should be well priced for all to enjoy - but it's a business decision I can understand (I believe however that this shift will not affect their Fine Oak range).

And so we have the 1824 Series (not to be confused with Macallan's travel-retail-only 1824 Collection - what, you couldn't think of another name?), four whiskies named after their colour (Gold, Amber, Sienna and Ruby) and one luxury whisky called M. They are all matured in sherry casks from Jerez and, in case you suspect caramel colour tampering, they are all non-coloured.

The colour in the Gold is, well, gold - very bright and shiny. On the nose it's Macallan "lite" - the fruitcake is tempered by citrus and freshly baked buttery croissants. Barnyard hay. A little oaky with some vanilla, which is a little surprising as this is matured solely in sherry casks. A slight hint of sulphur gives the nose a little more character. Quite delicate, it could use a little more oomph. Water adds a musty element which gives it a little more body.

Things change though, on the palate, and not for the better. It gets a little more sulphurous in an unwelcome way, dominating what is a delicate spirit: malt, dark chocolate, liquorice all-sorts. More vanilla, rather sweet. Lovely silky mouthfeel, but these disparate elements don't harmonize well. Water helps here, taming the sulphur and bringing out more malty notes.

The finish falls apart very roughly - it is quite long and unfortunately not terribly pleasant, too waxy and dusty. I would definitely recommend water, though unfortunately that does not improve the finish. For new whisky enthusiasts looking to explore this iconic distillery, this would likely be their entry point, which is really too bad - this one in particular should be a star, to get consumers excited about this new range of malts. I've had worse Macallans before (and certainly many, many better ones) but it's a disappointment considering the distribution, marketing and importance of this one.

Related Macallan reviews

8 comments

@Victor
Victor commented

A cautionary tale. Thanks for the review. Looking forward to reading what you have to say about Amber, Sienna, Ruby, and M.

11 years ago 0

@talexander
talexander commented

Amber and Sienna, though not cheap, are here in Ontario, and I will purchase them. The Ruby is nowhere to be found here...and the M was on sale for a very limited time (and only 30 bottles or something like that were available here) for $5000/bottle. I didn't get one. I know someone who tried someone else's and neither of them liked it...but few of my whisky friends are fans of Macallan.

11 years ago 0

Rigmorole commented

NAS = bad idea in most cases. Some call it controversy. I call it greedy and sneaky. When a bottle of scotch costs over $80, the buyer has a right to know what's in it.

11 years ago 0

Rigmorole commented

BTW, I'm also in favor of requiring GMO labels for foods, not scotch so much, but foods. . . .

11 years ago 0

@talexander
talexander commented

I'm not sure it is sneaky - if there is no age statement, then there is no claim for the whiskies to be older than they are. Also, one thing I DO like about NAS is that it takes the focus away from the age and more toward the whisky itself. We all know that there is a false perception that the older a whisky is, the "better" it is, which is not necessarily true. I believe the colouring of whisky is far sneakier than not putting an age statement on the bottle - and some of my favourite whiskies are coloured.

Having said that, yes I would much rather know at least the age RANGE in the bottle. More info would be better, not less.

GMO labels on whisky would be hilarious. "Hey, it's not genetically modified...but that doesn't make it not poison!" Then again, it's only going to be as genetically modified as the barley (or corn, wheat, rye, etc) that it is distilled from...

11 years ago 0

Rigmorole commented

I agree: an age range would be ideal. As for GMO stuff, I wasn't referring to whisky : ) just food.

11 years ago 0

@BigJoe
BigJoe commented

@talexander a useful review here for someone who would consider buying a bottle. I think popular opinion is that Sienna is best of the bunch.

Agree with you entirely on your last comment above.

9 years ago 0

@talexander
talexander commented

I haven't tried the Ruby yet, but of the other three "affordable" ones in the 1824 Series, yes Sienna is the best. I did have the opportunity to try the "M" and it was spectacular.

9 years ago 0