What's in a name? The Macallan Gold - 1824 Series whisky is called whisky because it's produced in Scotland. Were it from America it would be spelled The Macallan Gold - 1824 Series whiskey, rather than whisky.
Nose: This burnished gold spirit presents a lemon citrus nose, the orange peel and an interlacing sweetness that softens but doesn't eliminate the zest. A quiet note of vanilla is followed by dark chocolate - more assertive, yet not overly so - with a lingering floral and light oak notes.
Palate: Citrus and boiled sweets rule the palate, along with hints of ginger and cinnamon, while soft oak tones reveal toasted apples.
Finish: The finish is medium sweet, malty and slightly dry.
10th October 2012
I would hate to think that whisky one day be judged by colour alone. I think this would be dangerous to the industry for whisky companies such as Macallan by setting this example of quality for their product.I know lots of companies add caramel to their malts to make them look older etc and young whiskies can taste great (and a few Ardbegs spring to mind) but by changing the younger minds perception of quality whisky in the future could be quite damaging to the public who likes their older malts. It could be a strategy to make money faster over a shorter period of time or hopefully its just to offer a cheaper product to a different market.
15th December 2012
Macallan has always been my favorite, but take away age statements and I might have to reconsider. I agree with the comment above, couldn't have put it better than that.
2nd January 2013
P.S. I'm only 24 years old so don't worry, some of us younger guys still appreciate the older traditions of scotch (that's the whole point right?)
Try putting just a dash of caramel color in a vat of water. Look like whisky? Distillers do it too; however, our German and Swedish friends with those labeling disclosure assure us Macallan is unadulterated, which is pretty stunning. Still, who cares? Go for taste. Macallan has always been consistently delicious and Gold is just great for sipping with guest. Light, and delicate; yet complex is its array. Lovely.
3rd January 2013
I thought this page was a review of whisky? Whilst I agree with some of the sentiments and concerns raised among the whisky experts (of which I am definately not one) this is not a blog.....does it actually taste any good?
4th January 2013
I'm a big fan of this new Macallan!
11th January 2013
The colour of the whisky is lovely - a light golden butterscotch colour which is very inviting. Taking some time to breathe in the aromas there is a lovely refreshing fragrance of lemon and lime along with the gentler, more subtle sweetness of vanilla. The taste of the whisky seems to have several different layers to it. The first taste when it hits your mouth is definitely the citrus flavour which gives way to a deeper orange tone as you swirl it around your mouth. The heady vanilla kicks in in earnest at this point, lending itself more to the butterscotch side along with the creaminess you would expect. The aftertaste (I find taking a big deep breath in really enhances this bit) is of dark chocolate with the gentle heat of ginger. The lingering flavours are lightly heathery - that combination of a brisk outdoors walk followed by a warm fireside - which makes you want to curl up in front of the fire, close the door and lose yourself in the simple pleasure of enjoying it.
So to bluntly answer the question posed above - yes. It tastes good.
26th January 2013
so a ten year old from a bourbon cask is younger then a 9 year old from a sherry cask, it's stupid, they lost their minds completely the last years, first with the new line Fine Oak and now this.The Rolls Royce of whisky became a Volks Wagen Polo, glad I still have some old Macallan sherry oaks, and then ot's over, still good replacement for it e.g. Glendronach has a great line.
27th January 2013
Take away the age statement and it could be anything. So no more Macallan for me, I'm off to buy some Glenlivet; a whisky that says exactly "what's in the tin".
12th February 2013
Most people don't realize that age statements are actually a fairly recent thing in the whisky industry. I think its a shame, because people then associate age with quality, which is not the case at all. A whisky can be old, dark and shit. Age is not synonymous for quality, its just there to reassure the snobs. Real connoisseurs use their taste buds and don't give two shits about age. Macallan is making a very smart marketing move and Gold is actually quite excellent.
25th February 2013
The reviewer above stated it perfectly, but more needs to be said. The whisky industry can't keep up with demand of all the young novices who are coming in thinking age is everything. By law, the age on a whisky is the youngest whisky in the blend. Yes, single malts are BLENDS, unless it states its a single "cask". "Single Malt" just means all the whiskeys blended come from one distillery. A whisky isn't good cause it's consistently aged well. It's good cause the master blenders consistently BLEND it well. But if a million people want a great 12yo then eventually you won't have any good 12yo whisky left and you need to add some 13yo-40+ to balance it. So if they need to declare the youngest whisky, then they end up needing to charge low crappy 12yo prices for a whisky with 40yo whisky in it. Removing the age allows them to charge a bit more, while still giving us a reasonably priced whisky that tastes good. Sure naming it after the color is a little dumb, but don't hurry and crawl to Glenlivet, because they'll most likely lose age statements too in the not-too-distant future.
9th April 2013
and if I was rich it would only be one, and that's taste. Any numbers or writing on the bottle is just marketing, even if it's justified. A nice whisky will speak for itself, which is why I check these reviews.
12th April 2013
I've been drinking,Mac for a very long time and this one is one of my new favourites ! There's some silly comments here from some people that really are gonna miss out on a stunning dram ! PEOPLE , stop being snobbish ! The wonderful guys that make whisky know what they're doing . Sorry I've wondered off track . In a word STUNNING ! Drink this or miss out on a great dram !
Sorry, forgot to rate . A def 10/10 ! I enjoy all whisky and have tried more than 110 different brands from all over the world and I've learned one very valuable lesson , DON'T BE A SNOB ! So , try this stunning drink, even if it's just a sample .
What else is there to say?
Totally agree with the above statement. Unless stated otherwise, an age statement on a bottle is still a blended bottle (and always has been). Having tasted this whisky, along with the Amber, Sienna and Ruby that are to follow, I can tell you that it is very good. The old age of a whisky doesn't mean it's better than a younger whisky of a different brand. Macallan are doing away with the majority of their age statements as age statements are unsustainable and they just doesn't say enough about the whisky. These 4 new 'brands' better describe the drink you are getting. 'Gold' is lighter in colour due to the barrelling and blending it undergoes - it's still a minimum of 9 years old btw. My favourite was the Sienna... Mmmmmm! The Ruby is eventually to retail at about £100-£120 (or so I was told). Time for the age snobs to take a blind taste test maybe?
15th April 2013
This is a cynical (money motivated) move by Macallan. The good stuff is for export only (since they make more money that way.) No more Macallan for me. If it doesn't state the age, it's worthless... (We pay a premium knowing it's age (Is any 40 year old whisky REALLY better?(of course not!) but we pay the premium knowing it's age (stupid, but true!)) I'll never buy Macallan GOLD. It's a rip-off.... Macallan are doing so much brand damage with this cynical release...
5th May 2013
Not much to say, maybe I happened to buy a very young bottle, but horrid bite on the tongue. Nose and finish are ok though.
12th May 2013
And I will always o for a quality.
13th May 2013
Heres my rating
Finished my first bottle and off to get another soon. An age statement, to me, seems like a way for a distiller to print money without always giving a thought to the quality. Doing away with it (as many are doing - Ardbeg, Talisker, etc) seems to make sense to me, as now you have to go by the TASTE (heavens forbid). If you really want to know about why Gold is £35 and Ruby is £120, the info is out there but it's up to you if you think the taste is worth the money. This is just a lovely, smooth whisky and the price-point is spot on.
14th May 2013
I think all these folk who are complaining about there not being an age statment on the bottle anymore are utterly pathetic, nothing more than fools who have convinced themselves that they know about whisky,this whisky is a blend of 9-15yo macallan so its not like you're paying £36 for a 3yo malt, it's quality not age that makes a good whisky. btw its a great whisky.
20th May 2013
They are just trying to make more money with lower quality whisky. Also high volume = low quality. Good bye Macallan. However those older bottlings like 15 yo Fine Oak and the Travel series are still the ones to sought after.
22nd May 2013
Sad Macallan's move, completely cynical and anticonsumer. I COMPLETELY do not understand the new line /lines?/ of this distillery. From now on I would go for Aberlour, Glendronach and Benromach.
1st June 2013
I love your new Series! There is something for everyone...
6th June 2013
I have tried many whiskys and I collect some and drink some. I have 5 or 6 open at any one time and of different ages and price ranges. I would like to add that this whisky is a lovely drop to drink and is good value at this price. It is my first taste of Macallan but most certainly not my last. give it a try.
8th June 2013
In the discussion of age: If a label says 12 years old, the youngest whisky in the bottle has to be 12 years old. So what if a whisky on the distillery has matured really well and has a wonderful taste at 9 years old? You then have to let it mature for another 3 years to be able to use it. By then, it might be over the top....
24th June 2013
Having read all the comments and considered them carefully I have only this to say, price, colour, age are all important to some people, however, the original 10 year old was always my favourite ma Allan, when aged longer it didn't suit my palate, this is the point, personal preference, find something that suits your pocket, eye or whatever butters your muffin but keep drinking the water of life.
Tried the masters edition, on the gold now, think I may be be a sherry cask kind o guy. Enjoy.
26th July 2013
just has some for my birthday , lovely way to end a great day
13th August 2013
I've been told this whiskey is between 6 and 10 years of age, but as some others said, this isn't important to me. The very nice colour (I hope natural and unaltered with artificial colour), the great taste of this whiskey and the quality of the presentation makes it a winner. Even the price is not bad considering this is a McCallan and I'm from Canada where Scotch whiskey costs more.
24th August 2013
Macallan are cutting their ties with their fan based in search of riches in the East. This whisky is not a patch on the 10 or the 12. It is a great disappointment & tastes flat. You can taste the young whisky used to pad it out. If this is what Macallan feel represents their brand then I would suggest that you vote with your feet & stay we'll clear of this. Balvenie, Springbank or Glenfarclas are all better destinations.
Quite agree with most of the comments...just look at the color!!!!Shit of the shit!Is a Hypocrisy to call it gold!!
17th September 2013
I have loved Macallan for many years, now the love affair is over. The Gold is young, too hot, and flat; very poor. I will switch to my second favourite, 18 yr Glenlivet, which in Ontario, is the same price as 12yr Macallan.
1st October 2013
Some of these reviews are sad. Taste the whisky before rating it. This a decent bottle. I bought two small sample bottles from the shop to try it. Decent flavours, but nothing brilliant. Better choices for the money.
20th October 2013
Light and subtle, complex, honeyed. Less robust than famous grouse. Different drams for different moods. Would certainly buy another.
21st October 2013
I don't care about the branding - the age statement was just another brand. The previous 10 year old was a mighty thing, though, and the Gold is awful by comparison. Thin, raw-hot and utterly absent the rich, luxurious character that used to define The Macallan. Go for a Glendronach instead and berate Edrington for releasing this rubbish at all.
4th November 2013