Not a member? - Register and login now.
All registered users can read our entire magazine archive.

Shackleton

Your tastes and our tastes are discussed here, so make sure you share your pleasures with us.

Shackleton

Postby whiskgeek » Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:46 am

MacKinlay’s Rare Old Highland Malt Whisky - Beautiful! At $160, I'm not sure if I'll buy another bottle... but I just might. At $100, I would have bought more than one ($100 is my comfortable limit, generally).

I got this for a tasting, where everybody chipped in. We did six whiskies, and they tasted them blind. When they got to the Shackleton, and took a drink, many people tasted the initial peat, and said, "oh, I know where this is from." "Definitely and Islay." But after a minute or two, I didn't hear that any more. Their faces got serious as they tried to figure out what was happening in their glasses.

It's not what you might expect from a one hundred year old whisky. Definitely not unrefined, or even bold. It's very complex, and subtle. The peat, for example, is... soft. There's a layer of it, floating somewhere. I get a distinct spatial impression of where the peat is, which is impossible (if you understand my imagery). I don't recall tasting another whisky like this one, meaning I can't think of another whisky with a similar flavor profile.

The packaging doesn't increase the dollar value for me, but it's awsome! A wooden box packed with straw, the bottle wrapped in paper. The bottle and label are of sub-par production values, to match the original bottles. Very cool.

I wish I could tell you the flavors, but I'm not good at picking them out, much less writing about them. All I can tell you is don't buy this whisky... until I get another bottle.
User avatar
whiskgeek
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:43 am
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Re: Shackleton

Postby The Third Dram » Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:39 pm

whiskgeek wrote:It's not what you might expect from a one hundred year old whisky.

Probably because it isn't a one hundred year old whisky, but rather a replication of what Shackleton's whisky from round'about a century ago would have tasted like.

I agree it's quite a unique one. I had the opportunity to taste some last November, and was taken aback by an initial sensation of depth and complexity, if not by the finish, which I found faded a tad too soon.

There's no doubt that Richard Paterson did a marvellous job of integrating more contemporary distillates from various regions of Scotland into a very special whisky. The balance between sweetness and dryness, for one, is just about perfectly judged. If I recall correctly, there's even some rare Glen Mhor in the mix.

Glad you were able to score some, and are enjoying it. :thumbsup:
User avatar
The Third Dram
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2406
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:38 pm

Re: Shackleton

Postby whiskgeek » Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:36 am

The Third Dram wrote:Probably because it isn't a one hundred year old whisky, but rather a replication of what Shackleton's whisky from round'about a century ago would have tasted like.


Well yes, but if it really does taste exactly like the actual hundred year old whisky, then my comment stands. :-)

Yes, the batch contains one cask of Glen Mhor. Cask 1907, IIRC. I wonder how many casks went into it altogether. The second edition also has one cask of Glen Mhor in the mix, and also the same peated Dalmore as the first edition, but it's otherwise a different mix.
User avatar
whiskgeek
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:43 am
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Return to Whisky Tastings

Whisky gift and present finder