Is there a Macallan Bias around here?

[ScotchPalate]

The only Macallan I've tried is the 12 (Sherry). I enjoy it. I've heard that Macallan has dramatically raised its prices over the past few years. When Macallan becomes a topic, I've grown accustomed to at least one post stating that Macallan isn't worth the money. But is it a good dram? Do any of you feel that there is a bias on this board (not by moderaters or board admin, only by posters) against Macallan for jacking up prices?

[vitara7]

just diffrent people have diffrent veiws, and my own veiw is theyve rumped up the prices.
this whole thing they used to use to plug there whisky of it being only matured i sherry casks as that was the best etc etc etc, yet now there doing a non sherry finish, seams theyve changed there tune. i personally feel there are a lot better value whiskies out there for your buck thatn macallan.

[peergynt323]

I honestly did not like Macallan 12yo (and that's before I even knew anything about whisky). FO15 and FO17 are good drams. 18yo is quite enjoyable but not worth the price. I think their best offering is the Cask Strength: that's one that I would not hesitate to buy.

[lbacha]

I think Macallan has got a bad rap as well, I think everyone has hit them hard because of the FO range and the price increase of their whiskies. I don't think people understand that Macallan is doing what they need to do to survive. My job is to go into companies and help them make money. One of the first things I look at is labor. In a distillery labor is almost nill. I've toured Macallan and there are very few poeple there. The next thing I look at is how do we increase sales. Well if stocks are limited then this is a bad option. This leaves the only other option and that is increase prices and add new product lines to divert people away from the line that doesn't have enough capacity. In the past Macallan marketing strategy to say their Single Malts are only aged in sherry was a good strategy, but the market has changed and that strategy isn't viable anymore.
I think alot of distilleries will be making very fundamental changes in the near future because in business if you don't you die and the whisky business is just like any other. There arn't alot of technical improvements or labor improvements that they havn't already done so the only other option is marketing and sales prices.

[Tom]

Yes. Even more: I am guilty to that too. Now I wont go there again, I stated my opinion before and once is enough.
To answer your initial question, Macallan is great! At least for me personally it is a favorite. The 12, 18 and 25 sherry matured Macallans are all highly rated by me and if I have the chance to order a dram of these I most likely will. So I have my firm opinions about their policy but I will never state they make bad whisky. They are expencive, yes but the quality is high too. If it's worth the price is very relative and depends on every individual for himself.

[Deactivated Member]

They certainly are a lightning rod. I think they make perfectly good whisky, and always have, but their devotees in the past have always been a bit over-the-top, describing it as the be-all and end-all. Change is inevitable, as is the criticism that goes with it. If you do A, you draw people who like A. When you change things, as you must (as Len points out), those people of course don't like it. This is true in any business, but in Macallan's case, they have been turned on quite rabidly by those who were so zealously into the cult of Macallan. All very predictable. And much the same thing is going on now with Ardbeg, perhaps.

Any second now....

[vitara7]

this week its macallan whos getting it, last week it was bruichladich...


what i mean is we all have our own opions and arent bothered about shouting them.
the old saying about a sportsman "your only as good as your last game" well in out eyes, the distilleries are as only as good as your last bottle...

[Wave]

My 1st Macallan was the 18yo (mid '90's). Personally I didn't care for it much and thought it was vastly overrated.


Cheers!

[JohnyyGuitar]

First off, it ain't a MacCallan bias around here, it's general bias.
To me something seems amiss when you can get MacCallan Cask for just about the same price as their 10/12 year stuff. That should tell you something, either one is to cheap or the other is too expensive, but really a mute point in light of the fact that most wiskey is way over-priced anyway, blame that on "more money than brains", and to stir up a little trouble as I'm know to do, I dare say anyone who actually works hard for his money and gets a common laymen wage ain't out dump big bucks on snob scotch. Only us easy money folks do that.
Anyway, what I want to really say is that, why are people still refering to "quaility", didn't we establish in a rather lengthyy previous thread that all scotch is made pretty much the same and the quality of ingredients and processs are not an issue. Not to dredge up the past but, Talisker 18 has no more quality than Speyburn 10, most people just prefer the taste, it's not an issue of quality.
so PAH-A-ease, get that thru your head. If you want to act like a wiskey intellect around here.

[lbacha]

First off, it ain't a MacCallan bias around here, it's general bias.
To me something seems amiss when you can get MacCallan Cask for just about the same price as their 10/12 year stuff. That should tell you something, either one is to cheap or the other is too expensive, but really a mute point in light of the fact that most wiskey is way over-priced anyway, blame that on "more money than brains", and to stir up a little trouble as I'm know to do, I dare say anyone who actually works hard for his money and gets a common laymen wage ain't out dump big bucks on snob scotch. Only us easy money folks do that.
Anyway, what I want to really say is that, why are people still refering to "quaility", didn't we establish in a rather lengthyy previous thread that all scotch is made pretty much the same and the quality of ingredients and processs are not an issue. Not to dredge up the past but, Talisker 18 has no more quality than Speyburn 10, most people just prefer the taste, it's not an issue of quality.
so PAH-A-ease, get that thru your head. If you want to act like a wiskey intellect around here.

I will disagree on this point it's all about quality, the quality of the malt, the quality of the water, the quality of the barrel the quality of the distillation process. Great whisky is made from high quality raw materials and from a high quality process. You may get lucky with low quality raw materials and process but It would be just that luck. If this wasn't the case then why have master blenders, once the right recipe was formed all you would need to do is add the same parts from each distillery every time you make the blend. This isn't the case, master blenders mix and match many whiskies for every batch until they get the right flavor profile.

Most of the people on this forum demand quality products. The individual that goes into the bar just to have a drink with friends may not be as concerned about drinking a high quality whisky.

My point is don't make durogatory comments to people who prefer a higher quality product than what you expect from the distillery.

Len

[TheLaddie]

Of course thare is a bias against Macallan. Several of us have our own private little forum where we discuss our Macallan bashing tactics before unleashing our hateful posts with devastating effect on the wider forum. This is because we are secretly brand ambassadors for other Speyside distilleries hoping to bring them buggers up the road to their knees with our vitriol.

[TheLaddie]

First off, it ain't a MacCallan bias around here, it's general bias.

How can you have a general bias?

[Drrich1965]

First off, it ain't a MacCallan bias around here, it's general bias.

How can you have a general bias?

General Bias. He lead troops into battle armed with prejudice and judgemnt; certainly you have heard of him?

Rich

[Admiral]

My comments on Macallan are littered through this site (both good & bad), so I won't repeat them all here, but....

My big gripe at present is that they are producing two very different whiskies. One is from 100% ex-sherry casks, which is a relatively expensive exercise. The other has a considerable proportion of ex-bourbon casks, which is relatively much less expensive.

So...they make two different products; one expensive to make, the other much less expensive to make, and yet both products retail for the same price. That's what irritates me.

Cheers,
AD

[Les Paul]

I love The Macallan (both the sherry and FO). I enjoy Lagavulin 16 more.

[Di Blasi]

Macallan Macallan Macallan Macallan Macallan Macallan Macallan! Everybody knows it! And they've marketed themselves extremely well all over the world for years, so it's hard not to know it! It's good, but I think it's their name that makes their prices so high. Like other big international brand names, like Dom Perignon for example. People with the money are willing to pay for this and other brand names, and internationally recognized products! Is it worth triple what other Champagnes sell for? How about doing a blind tasting of Macallan alongside some other good whiskies? Will it truly standout? And after tasting Macallan blind, not knowing what it is of course, would you say it's worth, or you'd pay what it sells for??

[Reggaeblues]

I think it's a blues thang. the woman you wuz lovin' changed...she took yo' money, and her sherry flavour that she used ta leave on yo' lips...and no amount o'that fine oak can make you forget her!

Seriously, the FO ain't BAD, but...to me the macallan sherry bottlings, at their best, are distinctive, and will no doubt follow the path trod by the likes of Port Ellen...revered whiskies no longer produced, but whose secrets are still available to those who are prepared to pay.

I must say, the Macallan Tasting weekend i attended in 2004 was magniificent. Well put together and presented, great fun, and GREAT whiskies...After an "invent your own cocktail"(relax-we used Grouse!) I won a limited edition 1992 "ESC 4" which i adored on the tasting...classic Macallan(as I know and love it) but which I still haven't dared open; a bottle of the 18 / 85 thrown in; even a taste of a 1946...peated, no sherry. Fabulous, all of them.

sorry but fine oak, to me is "just another whisky" whereas, when offered a generous sample of a single cask 2 years ago at the Vintage House, i knew blind it was Macallan! bought 2 bottles...

Oh, and Les Paul...I prefer Fenders! even tho' I own and love an old LP(which I could never gig-the advantage of Fenders to me)...

I also love Lagavulin 16 - my "other" first love...

[Oliver]

Of course thare is a bias against Macallan. Several of us have our own private little forum where we discuss our Macallan bashing tactics before unleashing our hateful posts with devastating effect on the wider forum. This is because we are secretly brand ambassadors for other Speyside distilleries hoping to bring them buggers up the road to their knees with our vitriol.

Do you have anyone specific in mind?

[Deactivated Member]

Every whisk(e)y out there is somebody's favorite. Conversely, every whiskey has hard-core detractors who won't like it if they give it away.
Prices go up -- whether as a result of inflation, or demand, or both.
The folks for which a whiskey is a favorite will think the price increases are justified; the folks who don't like it in the first place will rail against the 'suits'.
This is called 'consumerism' -- ain't it grand! Without it, we'd all be drinking the same damned thing. Probably vodka.

[Frodo]

I have nothing against the dram. It's a good drop. If it was priced at Glenfiddich prices, I'd think about buying it...

[Quaichuser]

Macallan has long be known as the Rolls Royce, so to speak, of single malts. I had my first taste of the 18 yr old when it was half the price it is now. I thoroughly enjoyed it then and I'm sure I would now if I much deeper pocket than I have. I have learned over the years that there are lots of other really great scotches out there for less than half the price.

The Macallan name is a large part of what you are buying. It is like buying cigars.....people will pay the ludicrous price for Cohibas and Monte Cristos because of the cachet of the name. There are many other cigars made that are equal, and to my taste better, that either of those.

Remember, everyones taste is different, that's why we're here sharing our views.

[Onefortheditch]

Macallan make nice whisky and rich people exist who will pay the big bucks for the expensive bottles they produce. Other distilleries do the same. It’s a fact, so if it’s a problem, then build a bridge and get over it!!

If I won the lottery, I’d buy lots of expensive bottles of whisky…and be very happy aboot it too!!

In the UK you can buy both the 10YO and the 10YO FO for aboot £20 each, so they are in the same ballpark as the rest of the malt world.

Much as I like an 18YO Macallan, I’d prefer three 10YO bottles instead!!

[JohnyyGuitar]

ibacha wrote:

will disagree on this point it's all about quality, the quality of the malt, the quality of the water, the quality of the barrel the quality of the distillation process. Great whisky is made from high quality raw materials and from a high quality process. You may get lucky with low quality raw materials and process but It would be just that luck. If this wasn't the case then why have master blenders, once the right recipe was formed all you would need to do is add the same parts from each distillery every time you make the blend. This isn't the case, master blenders mix and match many whiskies for every batch until they get the right flavor profile.

Most of the people on this forum demand quality products. The individual that goes into the bar just to have a drink with friends may not be as concerned about drinking a high quality whisky.

My point is don't make durogatory comments to people who prefer a higher quality product than what you expect from the distillery.

Sorry to burst your bublle, but nothing could be farther or is that further from the truth, I learned all about it on this forum....Tell'em guys, Mr TaddieWaddie where are you when I need you. Tell'em how it's all pretty much made the same way, no specieal barely or any of that.
I use to think the same thing, that some scotch cost more because of the cost of quality that went into it. Not so though, according to the folks around here anyway....tell guys, set his wagon straight just like you did mine.

[JohnyyGuitar]

ibacha wrote:

will disagree on this point it's all about quality, the quality of the malt, the quality of the water, the quality of the barrel the quality of the distillation process. Great whisky is made from high quality raw materials and from a high quality process. You may get lucky with low quality raw materials and process but It would be just that luck. If this wasn't the case then why have master blenders, once the right recipe was formed all you would need to do is add the same parts from each distillery every time you make the blend. This isn't the case, master blenders mix and match many whiskies for every batch until they get the right flavor profile.

Most of the people on this forum demand quality products. The individual that goes into the bar just to have a drink with friends may not be as concerned about drinking a high quality whisky.

My point is don't make durogatory comments to people who prefer a higher quality product than what you expect from the distillery.

Sorry to burst your bublle, but nothing could be farther or is that further from the truth, I learned all about it on this forum....Tell'em guys, Mr TaddieWaddie where are you when I need you. Tell'em how it's all pretty much made the same way, no specieal barely or any of that.
I use to think the same thing, that some scotch cost more because of the cost of quality that went into it. Not so though, according to the folks around here anyway....tell'em guys, set his wagon straight just like you did mine.

[Admiral]

Macallan has long be known as the Rolls Royce, so to speak, of single malts.

Yes, but that's what gets some of us annoyed....they're now making volkswagons!!!!

Cheers,
AD

[peergynt323]

I read an interview with Macallan's whisky maker, and I have to say that he is a very smart business man. Remember that there is no law against lying. I find it hard to believe that Macallan takes the same "narrow cut" for all of their whiskies because the 12yo tastes so much different than the 18yo.

I have news for you though. They didn't raise prices because of their costs--unless you are talking about the cost of marketing. They charge what people pay for them. I can tell you that the Macallan 18yo at my local liquor store flies of the shelves compared with whiskies that are half the price and of at least equal quality. They've positioned themselves well and I have to respect that.

As for the Fine Oak range, it's just a matter of increasing your range and diversifying your portfolio. Most Macallan drinkers think that older is better. "Should I get the 12yo, or the 15yo which is obviously better and only a little more expensive?" To the inexperienced whisky drinker "Fine Oak" makes it sound better than the "standard" versions. Again, very clever marketing to their target audience.

It's really not bad whisky at all, but the company is not run by my kind of people. That's the reason I don't drink it. I avoid Silver Oak and Twomey for the same reasons.

[Deactivated Member]

Well, the cut is made at the time of distillation, and is pretty much standard at any given distillery...if that's what he meant by cut.

They charge what people pay for them.

So does every other distiller! So does any business with a product or service to sell. The Big Three automakers charge more for cars in the US than in Canada because of their perception of market conditions, not because they're any more expensive to build. They're the same cars! It's all about price points. Macallan have done a splendid job of convincing their customers that they are the Rolls Royce of malts, and the price point matches. The company certainly has problems, and some are the same problems any distiller faces--years of lead time, growing markets, insufficient supply. Oliver will be happy to tell you all about the peculiar mismanagements of Edrington Group. But the marketing shuck and jive is no different from anything any other distiller does, or would do if they could. It's all enabled by that considerable fraction of the consuming public who believe that Macallan is the be-all and end-all.

[Frodo]

They charge what people pay for them.

So does every other distiller! So does any business with a product or service to sell.

OK here is an exception. Buffalo Trace. The BTAC could be sold for a lot more, and most bourbon enthusiests agree that Elmer T. Lee brand is underpriced! I'd also point out the Alberta Premium 25yr expression sells for $30 at the LCBO.

I'm no marketing genius, but I think an alternate stratagy is to get punters thinking you're a "nice guy" corp, and building brand loyalty that way. Works on me...

[corbuso]

Macallan has always been one of the best whisky and was sold early on as single malt whisky. The Macallans were only sherry matured until a few years ago and have been always highly rated by the whisky experts. Macallan is selling very well, but the prices have increased a lot during the last 3-4 years (for example, the Macallan 25 YO Sherry was sold for £120-130 and now for £215). If you look at the quality/price ratio, it is not as good as it was before, but Macallan is still highly regarded and 90% of the 25-35 YO are sold to the South-East, where price does not matter.
It is a good whisky and don't mind a drink time to time.

Corbuso

[Quaichuser]

Macallan has long be known as the Rolls Royce, so to speak, of single malts.

Yes, but that's what gets some of us annoyed....they're now making volkswagons!!!!

Cheers,
AD

Have you priced a Volkswagon lately-. The Phaeton didn't last long.

My point was they still want us to pay for the name. Cadillac was, from the 20's to the 40's the epitome of the luxury vehicle. Then it became a parody of itself. (Anyone remember the Cimmiron.) But people still bought the name.
Most people on this forum know the difference between today's Macallan and what was sold 10 years ago, but there is a large market out there that doesn't and many buy on name recognition alone.
With the increased demand for single malt scotch world wide, flucuations in quality are bound to occur. The same thing happened in the cigar craze of the early to mid 90's. Manufacturers, in trying to meet a 100 fold increase in demand, in some cases,started producing lesser quality products. At the same time the price for those products skyrocketed. When the fad faded, production returned to normal levels and the product got better again.
I think we been experiencing a similar trend in scotch. Thank goodness for a forum like this where we can benifit from one anothers tastings of the products.

Cheers

[JohnyyGuitar]

I seem to agree with most of what's been said here (kinda odd for me)...anyway, quite aways back, many moons ago, I read the book "Hidden Pursuaders" (a college text at the time) I think it was written in early sixties or fifties..it was all about just what the name suggest, getting people to buy things and mostly about getting people to buy things reguardless of the quality, as the book suggests from case studies, it's all about marketing and perception. I recall it even mention..........liquor, it might have even been scotch in particular, the point the book made concerning liquor was the label design, how it had to give the impression that what was in the bottle was worth the inflated price of its contents, so certain lettering and colors were used, based on human and marketing studies.
Anyway it would be silly to suggest than any one of us is not subject to such stimuli and that we are a simple creatures easily manipulated by such simpley things as the type of font on a scotch bottle. And whatever company does it best, gets to be, well the best.
Anyway here is my big question....What do the you think the contents of a bottle of scotch really cost to produce ? My friend owned and ran a small micro brewery for a while and he told me the cheapest thing was the actual beer itself in the bottle, even the package and the bottles were worth more, not to mention all the other cost involved of which marketing was no small matter. Anyway he said the actual beer in the bottles was only pennies to speak of, a meer fraction of the price by the time it's in your hand and walking out ot the store. I'm inclined to think the story isn't much different for scotch. So the next time you are gingerly sipping that McCallan 18, with all the reverance due an ancient greek god, in reality you are probably washing down about 20 cents worth of liquior, the rest of it is just visions of sugar plums dancing in your head.

[peergynt323]

Your paying for the location of the distillery, the salaries of the workers, the marketing (if any), the expertise of the managers, and of course, the profits of the owners.

I agree with the above statement about being the "nice guy" company (most of us are Laphroaig lovers, right?), but at least in the U.S., Macallan markets to people who would rather pay more than less for their whisky. Unfortunately, the posters on this board do not represent the majority of single malt drinkers.

[Deactivated Member]

Johnyy, figuring what a bottle of whisky really costs to produce is virtually impossible. How do you figure it? If a barrel is in the warehouse for twenty years, does that actually cost anything? In one sense, it doesn't. In another, it costs an annual share of the expense of the real estate. In yet another, the producer will want twenty years' return on his investment in materials, and depreciation of the barrel. So who knows? But on the whole, I think you are correct. And that goes hand-in-hand with what I've been trying to say: market value has very little to do with cost of production. It's what people are willing to pay, based on their own perceptions of value. Those perceptions may be predicated on the discernment of one's palate, or they may be subtly swayed, as you point out, by the color of the label and the hairstyle of the TV pitchman.

They charge what people pay for them.

So does every other distiller! So does any business with a product or service to sell.

OK here is an exception. Buffalo Trace. The BTAC could be sold for a lot more, and most bourbon enthusiests agree that Elmer T. Lee brand is underpriced! I'd also point out the Alberta Premium 25yr expression sells for $30 at the LCBO.

I'm no marketing genius, but I think an alternate stratagy is to get punters thinking you're a "nice guy" corp, and building brand loyalty that way. Works on me...

Frodo, I'm quite sure that Buffalo Trace is keenly aware of how much stock they have, how much they want to sell, what customers are willing to pay (in a market that is very different from the single malt market), what their competitors' price points are, what the effect on sales would be of a dollar rise or drop in the price of a bottle. As a Feinschmecker, and Keeper of the One True Frodometer, you can make a judgment as to whether a given whisky is underpriced, with respect to the price/quality ratio. But if the market as a whole made the same judgment, there would be a rush on the product, shortages would ensue, and the price would rise until the supply/demand/price ratio was in equilibrium again. It's a little easier to be a "nice guy" corp if you make widgets and can make as many as you can sell as you need them, but supply in the whisky industry is dependent on long-range forecasting, which for Scotch is pretty much crystal ball stuff. It's probably a lot easier for bourbon producers, who only need to forecast trends three years out, and likely have more flexibility to deal with market fluctuation.

[Frodo]

They charge what people pay for them.

So does every other distiller! So does any business with a product or service to sell.

OK here is an exception. Buffalo Trace. The BTAC could be sold for a lot more, and most bourbon enthusiests agree that Elmer T. Lee brand is underpriced! I'd also point out the Alberta Premium 25yr expression sells for $30 at the LCBO.

I'm no marketing genius, but I think an alternate stratagy is to get punters thinking you're a "nice guy" corp, and building brand loyalty that way. Works on me...

But if the market as a whole made the same judgment, there would be a rush on the product, shortages would ensue, and the price would rise until the supply/demand/price ratio was in equilibrium again.

There is a rush on BTAC products when they are released seasonally, and many stores seem to raise prices above acceptable levels. But many people can get the products at suggested retail prices. I wish I was good with links, but there was a great thread over at straightbourbon.com about the BTAC. Ken Weber who works at BT told a story about someone wanting to buy that seasons production of GTS, and asked the distillery to "name its price". The distillery refused. Ken also stated quite frankly that BT could charge more for the BTAC if they wanted to and still sell all thier stock, but that the distillery chose to go "another way".

I don't think this is out of the goodness of the corperations heart. I think this is about another way to market your product. I do take your point about boubon being a different market from scotch. Chuck Cowdry (over at SB.com) also talked about the BT experimental collection that was released (and sold out in seconds - thus undercosted), and stated that the benefits to the distillery involved market perception that BT was on the "cutting edge" of research as opposed to any (minor) financial gains from a limited release. In addition to this, there was a benefit of letting fans try something new for a reasonable price, thus generating goodwill. I would say that Alberta Premium may have generated some interest due to their 25yr limited edition release @ $30/bottle together with the noise from Jim Murrays Whisky Bible.

[Frodo]

As a Feinschmecker...

What is that?