Macallan Fine Oak 15YO

Related whiskies : The Macallan 15 Years Old, Fine Oak

by **bamber** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 9:56 am

JM gives the 95/100 in his latest book. Thing is, that's the same mark he gives Teacher's (I like Teacher's but no).

Anyone here tried that particular expression of the fine oak range, because I feel my resolve slipping and I may be forced to order a bottle.

by **Admiral** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:19 am

How Jim rates & compares a 95 malt with a 95 blend is a separate (and dubious) topic, but nevertheless, 95 is certainly a great score for JM to give a Macallan, given that very few Macallans scored in the 90's in the 2004 edition.

Still, it's no walking advertisement for me. As you say, Teachers gets the same score, and I'd rate that particular drop somewhere in the 70's, so I'm still not enticed. However, if your resolve slips any further, be sure to let us know your thoughts on it!

Cheers,
Admiral

by **lambda** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:20 am

I had a sip of both the 12yo and the 15yo. While the 15yo clearly had a better taste, I thought they were both very middle-of-the-road. It seems to be produced to be enjoyable for most people, but this results in a quite boring whisky.

It's not very high on my wish-list...

by **Admiral** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:27 am

Lambda said,

It seems to be produced to be enjoyable for most people, but this results in a quite boring whisky

Wow....that's exactly what Sasquatchman and I saying on the other thread "Overated whiskies". Some recent releases from several different distilleries would suggest that they are "dumbing" down the flavour profile to produce a pleasant, drinkable dram that will appeal to the masses, rather than a unique malt that stands out from the pack.

Admiral

by **lambda** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:31 am

It's great for a gift then. I'm sure it will not offend anyone

by **bamber** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:33 pm

I'm going to heed Lamda's warning on this one for the time being. The only good word I've heard that swayed me a bit was JM's as he's generally no Macallan-phile.

Its annoying because I really like Macallan, but I'm not forking out £40 for a middle of the road Speyside. Just done it too many times in the past.

by **Frodo** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:05 pm

bamber wrote:I really like Macallan, but I'm not forking out £40 for a middle of the road Speyside. Just done it too many times in the past.

I hear your pain brother.

by **Frodo** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:08 pm

lambda wrote:It's great for a gift then. I'm sure it will not offend anyone

If you're looking for something that won't offend, I'd suggest 12yr Chivas Regal. It's nice and smooth, without any pesky challanges known as flavours to complicate matters. :wink:

Frodo

by **Lawrence** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:18 am

Frodo & Harry, is it true that the Macallan Fine Oak 15 is C$109 and the 21 is C$339 in Ontario? :shock:

Are they completely insane?

by **hpulley** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:12 am

Those are the correct prices and while they are rather insane, compared to the 'Fine & Rare' series they look like bargains. How does $2300 for '70 and $3250 for '65 hit you? Bruichladdichs usually look expensive here but comparitively, $425 and $600 looks reasonable compared to the Macs!

Harry

by **Tom** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:11 pm

lambda wrote:It seems to be produced to be enjoyable for most people, but this results in a quite boring whisky.

Thats exactly the word i was looking fore to decribe the fine oak range. you got it right on.

by **BruceCrichton** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:00 pm

bamber wrote:JM gives the 95/100 in his latest book. Thing is, that's the same mark he gives Teacher's (I like Teacher's but no).

Anyone here tried that particular expression of the fine oak range, because I feel my resolve slipping and I may be forced to order a bottle.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. I found it warm, thick and chewy to the taste. It's one of the few whiskies I would shell out £40 for.

by **bamber** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:26 am

Bruce,

Would you describe it as strongly flavoured ? Does the sherry still make a major impact ? Is it still obviously Macallan ? Is it nothing like the Elegancia (yuk) ?

I am now officially reswayed

by **BruceCrichton** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:45 pm

bamber wrote:Bruce,

Would you describe it as strongly flavoured ? Does the sherry still make a major impact ? Is it still obviously Macallan ? Is it nothing like the Elegancia (yuk) ?

I am now officially reswayed

1) Yes.
2) Yes but not as much as before.
3) Never had the Elegancia.

by **bamber** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:34 pm

Cheers, Bruce.

by **Admiral** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:52 am

I'm guessing the Elegancia wasn't to your liking, Bamber? :wink:

I only had two tastes of this, about six months apart, from two friends who brought it back duty free.

Whilst I didn't think it was a great Macallan, I still thought it was a pleasant enough whisky.

Is it still marketed anywhere, or has it been discontinued, given that the Fine Oak range is basically a similar product? Erik?

Cheers,
Admiral

by **bamber** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:14 am

I still see millions of gallons of Elegancia everytime I go to Heathrow airport and get the staff in the duty free trying to push it on me, whilst I stare misty eyed at the Ardbeg Provenance.

Some kind of weird off taste combined, with a tame (for Macallan) flavour profile made me really disappointed. Fortunately I had a 20cl bottle not a litre of the stuff to get through.

Personally I'd prefer 'Sherry Max' to 'Sherry Lite' (MJ's description), but a similarly robust but different Macallan does sound very tempting.

Related whiskies : The Macallan 15 Years Old, Fine Oak

Macallan Fine Oak 15YO

Macallan Fine Oak 15YO

Re: Macallan Fine Oak 15YO