The Macallan Gold - 1824 Series

Its great!

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.

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.

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.

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?

I'm a big fan of this new Macallan!

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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?

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...

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.

And I will always o for a quality. Sorry Macallan

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.