What's in a name? The Macallan 10 Year Old Fine Oak whisky is called whisky because it's produced in Scotland. Were it from America it would be spelled The Macallan 10 Year Old Fine Oak whiskey, rather than whisky.
The nose is quite clean and crisp. There are some gristy cereal notes with rubbed petals and a pastry note. A milky note emerges with a little marmalade. The palate is quite smooth and of medium-body. Notes of oily nuts and barley with some bourbon notes. There are hints malt extract and caramel sweetness. The finish is of medium length with chewy oak.
The reputation of this series lays with the older editions. 12 YO is not bad but the 10 YO expression is a bit too young, with just a hint of the finish:(
13th October 2009
It says this is part of the 'Fine Oak Range' - yet it comes in a glass bottle. What a rip-off!
26th November 2009
Fine Oak is really fresh, clean, with a nice balance of oaky/milky tones and fuity ones. A bit more interesting than sherry twin 10yo.
7th December 2009
Clean, gentle oak and barley with delicate hint of fruit. Distinctive Macallan spirit comes through.
29th May 2010
I love this - I bought it for my granddad.
30th June 2010
I hope you're joking mate.
17th September 2010
The Mcallan 10 yr single malt is the best produced by far,better flavour, body and after taste than any of the more expensive and longer matured casks,Ifully recommend it.
13th November 2011
Could not agree more !!!!
4th December 2011
I hope you're joking mate - too funny, must be a joke? On another note was at my friends wedding this weekend and all the male guests were given a 5cl sample of this. Thought it to be a very fine whisky, very smooth to drink, I usually prefer Isaly single malts but this one definitely has potential.
7th May 2012
Strangely enough, it's great to see that someone prefers the Fine Oak to the Sherry, because I love the Sherry version and have a great deal of trouble enjoying the Fine Oak version. Let your own debate begin...
26th May 2012
6/10, at a push!
This one is understandably not as popular as the 10 year old Sherry Oak, which has the typically sherried Macallan style. The Fine Oak reminds me a bit of a Glenfiddich - i.e. smooth, light, fragrant, not particularly great but not bad either. Doesn't deserve its bad publicity, but a bit unlucky the Sherry Oak range is so great and distinctive by comparison.
22nd June 2012
Pale and lacking in character, I thought the nose was seriously lacking (definite hints of caramel but I was getting nothing more), although it was strangely robust on the palate. It's nothing special and I wouldn't buy again, although worth noting that I prefer Islay malts and the inherent peatiness they have. Wife thought it was the worst smelling whisky she's ever known. She's not a whisky drinker.
25th December 2012
Are they supposed to sell it to you in the cask or something? haha.
Macallan is my favorite scotch, and Glenfidich, but this 10 year fine oak sucked. No flavor at all. Almost like it was watered down. I'm looking forward to trying the 17 year fine oak though.
2nd January 2013
Mediocre at best. Why did Macallan risk their great reputation on this? I had heard although cannot confirm it, that they ran out of sherry casks. Should have tried something else Macallan! It will make me very warey of any future Macallan purchases.
3rd February 2013
Says it all. Im disappointed with this one and it doesnt happening often im disappointed with whisky..
3rd May 2013
SURPRISE ,SURPRISE! Over 20yr drinker of the Sherry Cask and never thought to try the Fine Oak ( in my opinion defeating the whole purpose of Macallan) was given a bottle of the 10yr triple cask and actually enjoyed it! I would suggest this to those wanting to try Scotch for the first time. 1-it's super smooth for a 10yr., 2-You get that so slightly (what is Macallan) sherry cask taste.
27th May 2013
I had a bottle of this 3 or 4 years when I was just beginning to explore malts and I just remember being totally underwhelmed by it, it was and still is one of the few times I’ve been disappointed with a whisky, be it cheap blends or expensive malts. I wouldn’t say that it tastes bad in any way, it just (as mentioned above) has no character and left no impression on me. I’ve been tempted to buy it again because I thought perhaps it was me that was the problem, either my inexperience at the time or perhaps I just had some particularly good malts prior to it but looking at the other reviews it seems I wasn’t far wrong.
1st June 2013
Quite smooth, some good tasting notes, think some overly critical.
For the price the are better and more complex ones, but a pleasant dram, and one I will replace when finished though maybe with a 12 or 15 which are both better in terms of depth of flavour.
Uncomplicated easy drinker for when your not in the mood for smokey or complicated.
12th July 2013
when I first opened this a month ago I was somewhat unimpressed it tasted bland and metallic, but now its a different story, the nose is clean and packed full of creamy vanilla sweetness yet clean and crisp on the palate the vanilla comes through again like a rich crème brulee, barley sugar then the finish which I would describe as medium length just a smooth creamy vanilla note is left leaving a warm cosy feeling. not the most complex of offerings but great for a beginner although in my opinion and it is only an opinion, you could get a lot more bang for the buck. e.g. for the novice old pultney 12 or aberlour 10 or for the more experienced ardbeg/dalmore/balblair,lagavulin or coalila are all less money but streets ahead.
27th September 2013