Macallan Gold 1824 Series

My official rating is for the original tasting. (I rated 4 points lower for a sample that had been allowed to oxidize for a couple weeks. Changes are noted below.)

Nose: A young, grassy type of lemon, with equal parts hay and sour cream. Yet a sweetness of brown sugar. (The lemon and sugar disappeared from the aged sample.)

Palate: Lemon cream entrance. The initial vanilla flattens as zest/ginger rises. Green apple emerges with delicate balanced oak, expressed like malty caramel and vanilla. (Aged sample became acrid-- e.g. more lemongrass than lemon cream, more bitter zest, etc.)

Finish: Malty, neither dry nor sweet, with remnant sour apple skins.

Overall tangy with light oak influences. Not remarkable, worsens with time, and is easily replaceable with alternatives. For example, I find it most similar in style to Auchentoshan's Select. It is also reminiscent of Balvenie's 12DW, but more citrusy. Something about the hay and sour cream recalls the Highland Park 12, despite differences. I am also reminded of the higher quality Three Ships 10yo, the difference being this Gold had less less honey/banana.

Macallan's Amber, the next step up from Gold, is also similar. The difference is that the Amber is smoother (less sour) with the drawback of seeming less "lively". (The Amber seems to age less painfully, however.)

If I should recommend the Gold, I would say (1) finish it rather soon, and (2) you should be someone who enjoys "lively" (zesty) malts without much sensitivity to sourness/bitterness.

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.