Macallan Fine Oak 17 Year

Information: This Macallan matured in three different oak casks: one European Sherry cask, one American Sherry cask, and one bourbon cask. The two sherry casks previously held Sherry. This explains its 'Fine Oak' name as these cask selections were meticulously chosen. No added color or chill-filtration. Appearance: A lovely pale amber-gold color. The bottle is a standard design, identical to my 12-year except for the color and text. For $300 CAD, I expected a more distinctive design, especially compared to my Signet and Goyne 21 which seem to be in a completely different class yet cost less. 5/10 Nose: Very floral and sweet scent. Sugary, honey-like, syrupy. I can smell it from afar! Very fragrant and intense. No alcohol presence on the nose. Typical Macallan toasted almonds. Yes, there's sherry in there somewhere. Lemon zest. Remarkable complexity! 19/20 Palate: Less sweet than anticipated. A rich texture. Deep vanilla notes. Oak and lemon. If you dislike oak, this isn't for you! I don't mind the bold touch, but it's surprising for a high-end Macallan. Some might find it hard to approach. 43% ABV? Should have been 46%. Okay, I detect herbs. Dried herbs. Honey and spiced oak. The spice and herbs blend together. I'm unsure if these are two distinct aromas. Finally, it opens with a floral bouquet, the same as on the nose. It's wonderfully complex! 36/40 Finish: The finish is saline, with that herb or spice I can't quite identify. I'm not sure I enjoy the slightly artificial aftertaste, but the spices on the finish make my mouth water. I'm undecided. I understand the mixed reviews for this scotch. I can't say the finish is a failure, though. While not exceptional, it's well-crafted nonetheless. 21/30 Overall: Well... it's not bad, but it's not wow! It should have been wow! Something prevents me from saying wow! Something in the finish, the aftertaste... Yet, it started so well! Ok, I penalized it for the cheap cardboard box and unoriginal bottle design, but I stand by it! We pay for the packaging and get our filet mignon served on a paper plate! Come on! The product itself is quality. It's very good on the palate! And, unlike the 15-year version, it pushes complexity and originality. 43% ABV... really? Increase it to at least 46-48% if you want us to fully appreciate this range of aromas. But hey, I already deducted 4 points for that. In short, I like it, but I'm left wanting more. Too bad, I feel it was close to a home run. 85%

Continuing my exploration of some of Macallan’s releases, next I have a sample of their 17 year old bottled at 43% ABV. The aroma is velvety smooth, leading with a mix of powdered sugar dusted cherries jubilee, sweet lemon lime custard, and dusty leather-bound books, then dark chocolate ganache drizzled over figgy pudding, light musty cavernous minerality, and sweet pipe tobacco, followed by brut champagne, pear tart, and orange blossoms that transitions to ginger, cloves, cardamom, and polished antique furniture with a light ethanol burn. The taste is a medium mouthfeel, starting with a mix of sweet creamy tropical fruits, Black Forest gateau, and dusty leather-bound books, then blonde roast espresso, fig jam, light musty cavernous minerality, and freshly lit pipe tobacco, followed by brut champagne, caramelized pears, and orange blossoms that transitions to ginger, cloves, cardamom, and polished antique furniture with a light ethanol burn. The finish is medium length with orange blossom, creamy tropical fruits, Black Forest gateau, figs, blonde espresso, light baking spices, dusty leather-bound books, and polished antique furniture. This is an absolutely stunning dram that has a captivating yet velvety smooth aroma with a sweet mix of red berries, citrus, and creamy custard upfront, with the old oak notes well-present but in the background, followed by decadent chocolate-covered berries, a cavernous musty minerality, and faint sweet pipe tobacco, which leads to mildly sour citrus, florals, light spices, and antique furniture that carries over to the palate with an exceptional harmonious balance, along with additional flavors of tropical fruits, Black Forest gateau, and espresso, that finishes on the sweet side with creamy fruits fading towards a chocolatey dessert with espresso while sitting in an antique armchair reading a vintage leather-bound book. For a 43% ABV dram, the flavors are far richer than I expected and highlight that low ABV drams aren’t always thin with light flavors, but I’d still really like to taste this at a higher proof, as those flavors weren’t quite as bold and dense as I’d prefer. Thank you so much to a friend for sharing this delightful dram with me, as it was a special treat to taste a discontinued Macallan, and I wish these were still available without the secondary market prices.

Another review carried over from Barreled. Sampled again from a friend. Similar to the 15 YO fine oak, this is 43% ABV and aged in ex-bourbon and sherry casks. The color is a more amber gold. Like the 15, I'm unsure if it's colored or chill-filtered. The nose is dominated by oak. Plenty of floral honey. Caramel and toffee are present but somewhat subdued. A mix of dried and fresh fruits, particularly pears and apricots. Some vanilla is also detected. The nose is an improvement over the 15. More time in the glass results in a fuller aroma, but unfortunately, I lacked sufficient time to fully assess its potential. The palate features abundant oak spices that don't overwhelm. Light sherry sweetness. More oak and a hint of wood smoke. It's less vibrant than the 15 but slightly more refined. The mouthfeel is less oily than the 15 and slightly drying. The finish is medium-long and rich with oak spices. Is this superior to the 15 year old fine oak? Yes. Worth an extra $120? Not at all. For $240 per bottle, I anticipated much more. Comparing it to the Glenlivet 15, the 17 and 15 year Macallans pale in comparison. As strange as it may sound, I immediately compared these three to guitar pickups. Different pickups in the same guitar produce distinct sounds. This is similar. I'm somehow connecting taste and smell to tones. The Macallans focus on the high notes and are very bright, while the Glenlivet is warmer and emphasizes the mid-tones. Perhaps I'm just being eccentric. Regardless, I would not purchase this at $240, and probably not at the 15's $120 price point either. 3.5

This review was moved from the Barreled App. My initial thoughts from November 2016: I'm nearing the end of my Macallan 15 Year Fine Oak, with only about 4-5 ounces remaining, and I'm eager to compare it directly with the 17-year version. It's now or never... Visually, there's a distinct color difference. Both are a brilliant golden yellow, though the 17 exhibits a slightly deeper, more shadowed tone in the Glencairn. Both are 86 proof and show minimal legs after a vigorous swirl. Upon smelling, both prominently feature fresh, vibrant oak. The 15-year has a bit more sweet vanilla, while the 17 offers a pleasant balance of vanilla and sherry. Quite nice. On the tongue, both deliver a magnificent, attention-grabbing blast of fresh oak. The Macallan flavor profile, known for its smoothness and refinement, immediately comes to mind, and I find myself loving both equally. The finish is so luxurious that you can't really go wrong with either. It's long, smooth, and absolutely delicious. It's difficult to criticize the 17-year, even with its significantly higher price compared to the 15. I know the 17 retails for over $230, which is incredibly expensive. However, remembering we're discussing Macallan, one expects to overlook the price and consider it a luxury whisky. While I can't always justify that, this time I have to give it a pass. Go ahead and spend the money, fans. It's Macallan! Cheers. (Drops mic). Lol

This fine Scotch I kept for years, waiting until after I completed graduate school. A relative who worked in marketing for Edrington in Manhattan gave it to me as a gift. She withheld the Macallan 25, but offered my brother and me the 12, along with our choice of the 17 or 18, plus other complimentary items. I selected the 17 because it wasn't a common bottling and a relative also favored it. Upon discovering the price of this Scotch ($150-200) and that it had been discontinued, I resolved to save it. Five years later, I finally opened this bottle in August. Despite some deterioration of the cork, the experience has been pleasurable. I'm fortunate I received this without cost, as I would never have spent that much on a bottle until I was financially stable. It's a truly excellent Scotch, but I would never consider paying close to $200 for something of this nature. The sherry influence is somewhat subdued, even though two of the three casks used for aging were former sherry barrels. I detect more of a double oak maturation flavor, similar to what I find in American single malts and double oaked bourbons. If I were unaware, I might mistake this for a delicate, polished Jim Beam Double Oak that saw less than a year of sherry finishing. Another recently tasted whiskey that comes to mind is Rua American Single Malt, but this is lighter. It genuinely tastes more like a bourbon than Scotch, though a bourbon with minimal char. I believe the tasting notes from the expert support this comparison.

So, I'm down to about 4-5oz of the superb Macallan 15 year fine oak and I really want to do a side-by-side comparison with the 17 year version. It's now or never... At first glance, there is a very noticeable difference in color. Both are a shiny, golden yellow with the 17 showcasing a slightly darker, shadowy hue as it sits in the Glencairn. Both come in at 86 proof and neither produce very noticeable legs after a vigorous swirl. Upon nosing them they both really bring fresh, vibrant oak to the forefront. There's a bit more sweet vanilla in the 15 year, while the 17 is nicely balanced between vanilla and sherry. Very nice. On the tongue, they both have a magnificent fresh oak blast that really makes you take notice. The smooth and refined Macallan flavor profile immediately pops to mind and I instantly love them both, equally. The finish is so luscious that you can't really go wrong with either one. Long, smooth and freaking delicious. It's so hard to bash the 17 year, even though it's substantially higher in price than the 15. I know the 17 is $230+ and that's expensive as hell. I'm reminded it's Macallan we are talking about here so you are expected to excuse the price tag and just remind yourself it's a luxury whisky. Well, I can't always do that but this time I gotta give them a pass. Pony up the money, fanboys. Its Macallan! Cheers. (Drops mic)