Favorite MFO

[whiskeyme]

My brother picked up the Macallan Fine Oak 10 YO. I liked it. No, it won't win any awards, it isn't the best whiskey I've ever tasted. But I like the sweet malt meeting toasted oats in a creamy swirl. Nice for an easy going Scotch. It got me curious on the whole FO range. I'm wondering waht the older expressions are like. I've heard the FO 15 YO is great, but has a lot of chocolate in it. I don;t particualrly care for chocolate in my whisky. Although I doubt I'll get many votes, since most folks on this booard don't seem to care for the MFO range, I'm interested to know what you all prefer and why. Here are the ones available in my area:

[Dubois]

As a matter of fact, I'm not crazy about any FO.
Let's say if I realy had to go for one of these, it would be the 15 Yrs, also keeping in mind the price one has to pay for it...

[lincoln imp]

I really like the 15FO and i am not a lover of macallan as a rule, but to be honest i think anything over the 15 year is overpriced.

[Di Blasi]

I'll pick the 18y! Here in Norway we get the 12y, 18y, 25y and 30y, and of course they're all good!

[Ganga]

I have found the 15, 17, 18 and 21 to be pleasant but not good enough that I wanted to purchase/repurchase a bottle. I found the 10 to be just way too astringent/woody. Give me the sherry matured Macallans.

[Reggaeblues]

I have found the 15, 17, 18 and 21 to be pleasant but not good enough that I wanted to purchase/repurchase a bottle. I found the 10 to be just way too astringent/woody. Give me the sherry matured Macallans.

...anyday!

Had a sample of the remnants of a 1986 18YO sherry wood the other night.

Beautiful. Rich, complex, classic macallan that simply makes the FO range seem like the pleasant but unexceptional drams that I find them to be.

[whiskeyme]

I have Maccallan (Sherry) 12 & 18. Both are great examples of hevay sherry done well. Especially, the 18 . I like the change of pace in the Macallan Fine Oak. I think it's an excellent mix of sherry, bourbon and new oak barrels. The 10 YO was pretty creamy smooth. I didn't get any astringent notes. I knew that I was taking a risk posting this here. When I did a search, I didn't find too many compliments on the FO range.

[Deactivated Member]

I think the problem is that most of the comments are from those who think any Macallan that isn't full-sherry is tantamount to sacrilege. Mac made their bed with their former stance that their product was the Rolls Royce of malts because (in part) of the use of 100% sherry casks. The release of the FO series, a perfectly sensible business move, looked like hypocrisy to those who swallowed the marketing guff in the first place. To everyone else, it's just another Speysider, but a fairly overpriced one. No one much wants to pay Rolls Royce prices for it; the rep that was built up for the sherried stuff (which I always thought was overhyped) doesn't carry over.

[Ganga]

Tattie, it's not that I have to have 100% sherry matured Macallan; it's that the Fine Oak series is very pedestrian with an oaky astringency that I don't find pleasant. I have had several purely bourbon casked Macallans as well, including a brilliant bottling from SMWSA.

The bottle I had of the 15 FO sat for about 18 months on the shelf. I found it somewhat enjoyable then. So maybe it takes some oxidation for this series.

[Sherried Malt]

I once attended a Macallan sponsored tasting where they served the FO 10 and 15 as well as the regular sherry oak 12 and 18. If these latter two had not been served, I think most people there would've been perfectly happy with the FOs. I think Ganga hit it on the head; the FO is relatively uninspiring when you compare it to the traditional Macs.

[Sherried Malt]

The bottle I had of the 15 FO sat for about 18 months on the shelf. I found it somewhat enjoyable then. So maybe it takes some oxidation for this series.

Just like it takes mold to make some cheeses?

[Ganga]

Macallan is perfectly capable of producing a fine bourbon matured whisky. I haven't put the sherry matured against the FO series in a head to head comparison.

I did a flight of the 10, 12, 15, and 18. Although the 15 and 18 were big improvements, they weren't anything to get very excited about. Since then I have taken the opportunity to try the 17 (WOW '06) and 21 (Noonan's '07). Again the 21 was good but it doesn't get my motor purring.

[Lawrence]

I recently tried the FO 25 and I thought it was awesome. The FO 15 is also very good.

[les taylor]

I have to say that imho you have to detach the FO from the sherry. They are two completely different concepts. Depending on your mood I sometimes really want to taste the Oak in a dram. I reckon Macallan do this really well. And having said that, I will always have a Macallan FO to hand.

[Deactivated Member]

No Tattie, I agree with Ganga in that it isn't a case of swallowing marketing hype.
The first time I tried a Macallan (sherry) 18y I was stunned. This was the first such malt that I had tried and it was truly magnificent. I have now tried many other sherried malts and they are also good, for example the 1986 sherried 'laddies are fantastic, especially with their base flavour of fruit under the sherry.

I have tried the 12y and 18y Fine Oaks and have found them totally uninspiring. Lacking in almost everything I look for in a malt and by that, I don't mean sherry.
MT

[Deactivated Member]

whiskeyme,
thanks for the poll, but my option would be "Something Else".

I would have liked to have seen some kind of "Other - Please explain" option in the poll.
MT

[whiskeyme]

Teaser, I'm confused. My initial post clearly states that I wanted to see if any could offer thier positive experiences with the FO range, and which they liked best of the ones available in my area. I enjoyed the FO I tried and was looking to try another. I did not ask what people like in the sherry/bourbon mix genre or IF people liked the FO range or not. An "other" option would have been irrelevant to the topic. I'm guessing your intention would be to offer a suggestion of something like the FO range that you like better, and given you the opportunity to bash the FO Range or Macallan's marketing methods along the way (wouldn't surprise me if that was a majority of the post ).

Some have politely shared thier positive experiences with different FO expressions and their preferences, even a few votes. Sadly, most of the posts have simply bashed the FO range. These unhelpful remarks did not change my mind about what I prefer or enjoy. I'm curious as to why people feel the compulsion to express their distaste, as irrelevent and unhelpful as it may be, rather than putting the time and energy into posting it somewhere it is asked for (let's say someone posted wanting opinions on the FO range) or posting elsewhere where it may be helpful. I'm sure that these folks probably think they are being helpful, saving me from the dreadful "uninspiring" FO range. Geez

[Drrich1965]

Well, the truth is I only have tired the 10 and the 15, and truth be told, I like the FO 15 far better then the 12 (which to me tastes very matalic and sappy), the Cask Strenght, the regular 10, or even most of the 18s I find the FO 15 to be very rich in sweet malt lovely sweet malt. To me, it shows off a great fullness to the spirt which is hidden by the sappyness of the 12s sherry. In general, heavily sherried SMs only work for me if they are well balanced- strong peat or malt notes competing for attention and focus. Mainly I have keep out of this one due to the intensity by which people share their feelings about the horrors of Fine Oak.

Now, would I buy another bottle? No- it is far too expensive at 80bucks in North Carolina, and to me the Glenfiddich 15 has a similar (not identical, as the oak is much stronger in the GF) profile to the FO 15 (and the GF15 is about half the price or so).

I am looking forward to perhaps buying a FO 25 in duty free the next time I am south of the border- I think it was about 175 bucks, and I am willing to take a shot.

But then again, like I said, I am not a big fan of the big sherry malts, which some others here love...

For what it is worth.

[Ganga]

Let's get something straight here. My opinion of the FO series has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes of bourbon, sherry or vatting of bourbon/sherry casks - I've had very good expressions in each case. My opinion is that Macallan did a very uninspired job of vatting bourbon and sherry casks (or had poor sherry casks to work with) to create the line.

I chose a favorite-FO21. Of these it was the one that I enjoyed the most. At least to date, I would say that Dalmore has done a better job vatting bourbon/sherry in their 12 yo than Macallan has done.

If you like the FO 10, chances are you will like the rest of the FO series as they all are very oaky and decrease in astringency. My vague recollection is that the 15 is around $60, the 17 is around $100 and the 21 is over $200. The last FO30 I saw was over $800. If the prices fit your budget, try the 15 and 17 as I think they are a much better value than the 21.

[Drrich1965]

Ganga,

I trust that your opinions are based upon your evaluation of the malt, on face value. I do think that some people (not saying anyone here) give the FO a negative assesment becuase it is " the thing to do." Damn, I sound like a certian JWR drinking member

Regardless, I really liked the 15, and look forward to tryign others (in bars, not bottles at those prices).

[Ganga]

I believe you are absolutely right to question me. I went through complete bottles of the 10 and 15 along with several pours of the 12 and 18.

I put myself in a this is not Macallan mindset, even had it given to me blind. It just doesn't get it done for me. I did find that 15 got better with a lot of open time but they just don't get it done for me. I sat down with the 21 and found it to be much better than the younger siblings. I'd even buy a bottle if it was around $120 or less.

[Drrich1965]

The prices are way out of line...Speaking of good prices, Glenfarclas 12 for 35 bucks today..now that is a good malt at a good price..

[mikeymad]

Pretty simple I drank bottles of the 10, 12, 18. Had the 15, 17, and 21.

I liked the 21. But would not pay the price for it. If I had to pick the best of the rest I would say the 17yo. 12 was drinkable, 15 was better, the 18 was good. I liked the balance of the 17 just a little bit better.

I probably would pick the standard 12yo Sherry over just about all of them, but I happen to just love Sherry matured Macallan.

Cheers,

[whiskeyme]

mikeymad,
Many have expressed the same experience/opinion on the FO range. So, I picked up the 17 YO. I may not open it for a while though.