Macallan Fine Oak 10 year?

[tuddy24]

Hi Everyone,

Is the above Macallan overrated? I'm always looking for a new SM to try, blends too, and I seem to get steered away from this brand regularly. The 10 year is $35 at my local shop and right around where I'd like to spend. The below are are in order of favorite to least favorite. Thanks for your input.

Highland Park 12
Glenmorangie 10
Glenfiddich 15 Solera
Black Bottle (no age statement)
Johnny Walker Black
Glenlivet 12

[talisker10]

The only Macallan I have had is a dram of the Fine Oak 10yr at a restaurant. I found it very astringent, too oaky, even rough. For $35 I would try the Bowmore Legend.

[Reggaeblues]

Hi Everyone,

Is the above Macallan overrated? I'm always looking for a new SM to try, blends too, and I seem to get steered away from this brand regularly. The 10 year is $35 at my local shop and right around where I'd like to spend. The below are are in order of favorite to least favorite. Thanks for your input.

Highland Park 12
Glenmorangie 10
Glenfiddich 15 Solera
Black Bottle (no age statement)
Johnny Walker Black
Glenlivet 12

You'd be better off trying(and I'm sure I head a chorus here!)the Macallan "exclusively finished in sherry casks from Jerez" , the standard bottling being a 12 YO I believe, in US(here in UK it;s a 10). You don;t have any whiskies on your list that are what we call "sherry monsters", and you owe it to yourself to try! Generally mush preferred by whisky lovers, who associate the name "Macallan" with this style, as their "official bottlings" were all in this style for so long. The "Fine Oak" series is relatively new, and though introduced amidst much marketing fanfare, is really a way of compensating for a drop off in the availablity of good sherry casks, hence the whisky in this range is not all from sherry casks. You have a great example of "mixed casks" in the Solera - a great dram.

the "old style" Macallan was one of my first whiskies, and I loved it. Still return to it from time to time, with much affection!

Glenfarclas(try the 15) and Aberlour are two other distilleries that specialise in sherry cask maturation. But I think i prefer the Macallan...perhaps for sentimental reasons!

the 18YO sherry version is especially good...but expensive.

[The Third Dram]

If you do decide to go the 'traditional' Sherry casked Macallan (either the 12YO or the now prohibitively pricey 18YO) route as Reggaeblues has suggested, you might also want to consider the Macallan Cask Strength. It sits at a pretty attractive cost point for what it has to offer.

As for the Fine Oak range, general consensus has it that those offerings at 15 years of age and above display better balance than the younger bottlings.

Glenfarclas 15 Year Old is a very good whisky, which has regained much of its previous lustre after a temporary 'slump' period of relatively de-sherried demeanour. And the 46%ABV strength is spot on for this classic Highlander.

Aberlour? I'd recommend (from the standard range) either the cask strength a'bunadh (intense and mouth-coating) or the 16 Year Old Double Cask Matured (very stylish and complex).

[Reggaeblues]

I'd agree with that. At some point, not only ought you to try a "sherry monster", but also try higher "cask" strength whiskies. they are not for "everyday" drinking IMO and are perhaps best tried when your palate hs been acclimatised and experienced to whisky, which even at 40% is strong to the unfamiliar...

Having said that, i've recently devoured a bottle of bog standard 40% Aberlour 10 YO with great relish! Nice nd spicy with a good deal of sherry.

But for me, there's a certain Macallan trademark taste you have to try! It's certainly there in concentrated form in the cask strength as TTD points out, but I think I appreciated it more having acclimatised on the "standard " strength first.

[Ganga]

I'm probably one of the most vocal against the FO series and for the standard sherry matured line of Macallan. A friend of mine and I bought up some of the first FO 10, 12, 15 and 18 yo bottlings. At least initially, we found the bottles to be quite astringent and too much oak on the palate. After a few years, these became quite drinkable...well, except for the 10-took about 3 years to finish.

Fast forward to about 9 mos ago and another friend just couldn't resist the urge to buy a bottle of the FO 10 for $26. Now he found it quite astringent and oaky to start but also found that it was an excellent lead into another whisky he had. I tried it with him after it had been open about 3 mos. This FO10 had opened up and while not the greatest whisky in the world was actually drinkable. It would seem that more recent bottlings are better than the introductory ones.

If you like oaky astringent whiskies, the FO series may be a treat for you. Also, at some point you need to try some sherry monsters. Some of the single cask HPs fit the bill but run up the price scale compared to your standard HPs. I'd suggest either the Macallan 10/12 or Glenfarclas 12,15, 17. From there, then I'd start hitting up the higher proof sherry monsters: Aberlour a'bunadh, Macallan CS, Glenfarclas 105.

[lincoln imp]

I also like the standard sherried Mac bottlings but try the 15yr FO it is very nice and maybe to your liking

[Willie JJ]

Is the above Macallan overrated?

No, I think most people think it is average to poor.

Looking at Highland Park as your favourite maybe you should try something else on the smoky side. Talisker, or Lagavulin maybe.

[lancj1]

I got 8 bottles of the FO 10 at Tesco last year when it was £13.00 a bottle. I wouldnt pay full price for it, it went down ok but nothing special.

[tuddy24]

Thanks for all your input everybody, it's much appreciated!

[Megawatt]

I thought the Fine Oak 10 was pretty decent, though the finish was a little sour. I don't know why so many people hate it.

[irishwhiskeychaser]

Can't comment on the fine 10yo fine oak. But not a great fan of macallan sherried sherried. However the 12yo fine oak I actually found to be quite palatable.

[Les Paul]

The FO 10 is good. The FO 15 is much better, IMO!!!!!