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.
Just opened a bottle - initially, the nose is delicious, well put together, deep and rich with velvety toffee and a load of other good things going on. The palate also does not disappoint. However, after 5 - 10 minutes in the glass a smell and taste that is somewhere between burnt rubber and PVA glue takes over. Really odd and a shame after such a great start!?
15th September 2014
I have been a fan of Macallan since I started drinking whisky 30 years ago. This is certainly a different whisky from what I remember, but it still rates in my opinion. What I don't like is dropping the age labelling. Whisky drinkers have spent decades perfecting the understanding of aged malts why make us pay for a blind tasting?
Still, it is the liquid in the bottle that counts and this certainly lives up to the tasting notes.
21st August 2014
Not too sure why this whiskey should be considered a good whiskey.
5th August 2014
as the title says, it's almost as off putting as drinking fuel. I've always been a Macallen fan and luckily my cabinet is still home to over 20 older bottles of Macallen. what a sad shame that Macallen has decided to lower quality standards and raise prices. going in this direction is a clear statement to the North American market that they are only catering to the Asian market... too bad, we North Americans actually care for quality, the other markets can have your crap, send North America the real stuff Macallen.
what a waste of money...
25th July 2014
....and quite like this one, and am a bit surprised by all the negative reviews. Each to his own.
24th July 2014
Sorry to say... This is sad, flat, bland and deeply disappointing. It has become increasingly difficult to get hold of a decent Maca... And this isn't it.
10th July 2014
Little nose to speak of.
Pallid aftertaste with faint toffee notes.
Does not deliver.
29th June 2014
My first venture into Macallan after hearing so much about it. Hands down the worst whisky I have tasted. Vicious burn, bland and heartburn inducing. Had to give it away.
25th June 2014
I don't understand any of the negative reviews unless one simply doesn't enjoy the traditional Macallan. For over 2 years I drunk the Sherry Oak Macallan 10yr every day, changing bottles every 10-14 days or so. So I was rather used to the taste. I always preferred it to the Fine Oak 10yr which is maybe what some people here were used to. I was very worried indeed when I heard that Macallan were discontinuing it. Now - I haven't done a direct side by side comparison, and it is certainly a while since I have had the 10yr Sherry Oak. But from memory the Gold is very, very similar to it - and it is a Sherry Oak made using Spanish casks. And aside from how similar it may be, it is certainly a very very fine single malt. Really being dictated to by an age is like following an old wives' tale - like red wine with meat, white with fish.
25th May 2014
I love a Speyside and always look for a supermarket special offer at £20 quid and rarely break the rule but,I thought I'll treat myself at £30 and now I believe in my £20 rule.It was a waste of that extra tenner as special offer £20 bottles of Speyside are just as good. So i'll keep watching the supermarket shelves.
11th May 2014
I have been drinking Macallan 10 year old for over 35 years, for my birthday my daughter bought me the Macallan Gold she told me she could no longer get the Macallan 10 year old, the store told her it is the same Whisky, well I am very disappointed its nothing like the 10 year old it is horrible,
The problem is you cannot change it once it is open I rang the store and they told we would never had told your daughter it was the same Whisky, but they did tell her, Well Macallan you and the store have lost a good customer
7th May 2014
I found the nose very enticing, but the absence of the sherry influence was noticeable. The palate was nice, but weak, kind of disappointing, unlike any other Macallan I have enjoyed. The finish was non-existent. This would be a nice right-before-bed dram. Nothing to excite your mind or tastebuds, like a warm glass of milk. If you are trying single malts for the first time, this is the scotch for you. If you’re an experienced scotch drinker, I see no reason----other than curiosity----to purchase The Macallan 1824 series Gold single malt....allan
30th April 2014
Interesting how many people have got flawed bottles of this stuff. Having now tasted a non flawed (or at least, less flawed, because despite being thin there was a highly unpleasant ethanol burn) sample, it's nothing to write home about at all. Glenfiddich and Glenlivet do floral, delicate, smooth whiskies very well for much less money. If you've got £35 however, you are spoiled for choice of better malts for consistent quality, feel, taste, and even snob cachet.Junk.
20th April 2014
I understand reasoning for bad reviews HOWEVER....its truly a sweet, smooth and creamy whiskey. Don't jump on the popular band wagon of hating this whiskey because it is a "no age statement" whiskey. It is very tasty, very rich, and I truly enjoy it. I have been enjoying Scotch whiskey for many years and take reviews rather seriously. It was a rather uneducated branding move for Macallan, however the taste is enjoyable. Drink up! Slainte
18th April 2014
In my opinion this is one of the smoothest whiskies have ever tasted. What planet are these so called experts living on. This, I found, was the perfect finish to a good meal. The rich, sweet after taste lingered for many minutes. I detected a hint of honey or some similar additive which made the whisky stand out from its rivals. Well done Macallan for providing something a little different. The absence of an age indicator was not a factor in forming an opinion. Moreover, the price was very competitive.
16th April 2014
I have been drinking a bottle of this (in Canada:) for the past 2 months or so. I understand and respect the poor reviews of this Whiskey. Having tasted the 10, 12, 15 and 18 a number of times I have to agree this does not live up to the well established name of "Macallan". However, I really enjoy the finish. Its creamy and rich. Something keeps drawing me back to enjoying another dram of it. Its truly not "that bad". I happen to enjoy it here and there.
Overall, an enjoyable whiskey. you will certainly finish the bottle my friends. Enjoy.
5th April 2014
the worst Whisky I've tried in years. I had to spit it out. judging on the liquid in the bottle and it's flavour, I can't give this ANY stars. Id rather drink Grouse...
2nd February 2014
... shouldnt be calling themselves whiskylovers.
if you absolutely want know the age, then look it up. i'm sure they arent keeping the age secret. like previous macallan, the ruby etc is just the name of the bottle, exactly like the 12y or 18y bottle. feeling ashamed of most of you.
i'm giving this one a decent rating although i would rather buy the 12y if i had to choose.
29th January 2014
24th January 2014
At £29, fine. At £35, absolutely not. Confused, sulphurous, and rough, not a pleasant sort of rough either. Frustratingly, a pleasant nose, and strong evidence of some very good stuff being murdered in a rather coarse manner. If anyone can confirm sightings of a finish at Heathrow, please report it to the authorities without delay.
16th January 2014
Love this whisky. Reminds me of the 10yo from about 10 - 12 years ago. A classic Macallan. A flawless clean classic sherried Macallan. Michael Jackson would have loved it. Bamber.
13th January 2014
To me taking the age off the bottle is unacceptable. Although I believe that some whisky aged 12 years is better than some aged more years I still would like to see an age. Put a 9 on the bottle if its a 9 year old. Trying a 30 year old whisky is not just about taste but about the rareness and care of a 30 year process. As for the Gold - I thought it was pretty good. Still very much Macallan as a brand, but somewhat young tasting and a little rough around the edges.
6th January 2014
I was a big fan of Macallan until I tried the Gold. What a disappointment ! It is so unfortunate to realize that even one of the best brands of Whiskeys will sacrifice quality for profits.
30th December 2013
I honestly had few concerns about this being no age statement- the proof being I bought it! I loved 10 YO Sherry, and Fine Oaks but this was a joke from Macallan.
There's was no smooth, chewy mouthful of Sherry, only cloying then vapid mouthfuls of disappointment. I hated this and would far rather have had a blend! This really disappoints me and please don't think me snobbish for writing this, because, as I say, I had few reservations. This is just a terrible Scotch. I would not touch it again and suggest your money is better spent elsewhere.
22nd December 2013
The nose is just vile. I don't really know how they managed to make it so unappealing but I'd be hard pressed to find anything but pungency and subtle oakyness, and maybe add a shy wisp of honey melon. The rest is a queer mess that primarily smells of greasy filth (a surprise for a Spey to be sure) that's really off-putting next to almost any whisky with a decent nose, which is hard to forgive this being a NAS bottle that can potentially be engineered there and back again leaving open the question if this seriously was something someone specifically wanted to make. The taste of the Gold is surprisingly better than its nose would lead to believe. Slight tangerine sweetness with a bit of cream taffy and ginger, then the burned and filthy notes promised by the nose. Luckily the strongest aftertaste component is sweetness which helps forget the dirty and lacking mouthfeel. The tail is a metallic tang. In each of my drams I found the last mouthful to have a strong clear alcohol taste.
19th December 2013
Определять возраст по цвету - это бред. Представте, что производители автомобилей перестанут указывать объём двигателя, а производители компьютеров - размер оперативной памяти, строители - перестанут указывать площадь помещений!!! Всё это будет определятся на глаз(по внешнему виду)!!!
Как Вам такое?
8th December 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
Light and subtle, complex, honeyed. Less robust than famous grouse. Different drams for different moods. Would certainly buy another.
21st 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
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
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
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.
24th 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.
just has some for my birthday , lovely way to end a great day
13th August 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
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
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
I love your new Series! There is something for everyone...
6th June 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
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
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
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
Heres my rating
13th May 2013
And I will always o for a quality.
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
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
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
What else is there to say?
12th April 2013
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 .
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 !
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.
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
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
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
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
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
I'm a big fan of this new Macallan!
11th 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
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
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?)
2nd January 2013
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.
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
10th October 2012