The Macallan Amber - 1824 Series Whisky 70cl

Refutes the claim that NAS whiskies are poorer. A lovely whisky.
The dry fruits come through on the nose and the palate. The spirit is not overwhelmed or overpowered by the dominant assertive nature of the European Oak, probably because it is still a fairly young whisky.
Cinnamon, raisins, currants, sultanas, figs, all come through strongly, but so does the Golden Promise barley influence in terms of fruity, nutty waxy oily spicey slightly bitter notes along with barley sugar notes.
A lovely whisky.

This is quite a pleasant speysider.
Let’s try to forget for a moment, what name’s on the label. Then more people might rate this better. ‘Cause it’s actually very well made. It has the delightful nose that gives away a sherried whisky. It has the freshnes and fruitines the is speyside, a crisp and spicy taste and a rather fat mouthfeel. The finish is fairly long and pleasant.

At this point I’m 4.5, but:

It does have a pricetag where you can easily find better competitors among Benriach, Glenlivet and others.
That’s. When we remember the name on the label.
You do pay for that name.

For what it is though - it is a good whisky but fans of the brand may find it a bit underwhelming.

I am not a scotch connoisseur, but enjoy a good dram now and then. A bottle of the Amber was my first taste of a Speyside. I have mostly enjoyed the heavy smokey peat of Islay (Lagavulin and Laphraoig), the honey and flowers of Dalwhinie and the "ocean and seaweed in your mouth" of Talisker. I was excited to finally try a Macallan and there was no 12 or 18 available. The Amber was smooth and easy to drink (my wife liked it best), but I felt I had been left at the altar compared to my usual drams. I am unsure whether to just be content with those I have come to love or try again with another Macallan. I have read the comments about "no age". I generally don't buy non-vintage wines (I'm in Europe), but I understand in California the weather is so consistent that vintages were not important until they began competing with European wines and it was the required protocol for anything over $15. I understand the side that says, "judge by the taste, not the age, but I feel part of the appreciation of a good dram is its story, location, type of casks, age in the cask, etc. etc. and so, if I want a decent table wine or a dependable average dram of scotch, the vintage/age doesn't matter much, but for that special adventure, knowing the weather challenges and individual characteristics of a vintage are important to me and the same with a special dram of single malt whisky. For the price, I expected more than a table bottle/dram.

Smooth and well balanced. I usually drink the standard Balvenie

Nose is almost non existent. Palate is limited (vanilla and dried fruits mostly).
Finish? What finish? On the bright side it's rather smooth with very little if any mouth burn.
Overall I wouldn't say this is a bad single malt, just a fantastically overpriced one.
You have been warned!

Nose is not bad, but that solventy finish. Nope. Try something else.

Why are you doing away with the ages? Such a bad idea. Macallan 12 and 18 are a staples on my bar -- I'm offended that you would water down your brand.

My wife and I have tried a bottle of Siena and Amber. While the Siena is more expensive and more complex we prefer the Amber for that special after work moment. It is lucious in its wash on the tongue and less challenging to pallet. Maybe we we aged aficionados we might have more sophisticated perceptions but for our money the Amber is God’s gift to Scotch drinkers.

Just above average, easy to drink and likeable.

Lemon drizzle cake on the nose, intense mid palette mouth burn continuing for a long time, despite being 40% vol, delivers a cask strength mouth burn. Adding water suppresses the burn, but gives a weak, watery mouth feel consistent with a £20 supermarket malt. Used a Master of Malt 'Drinks by the Dram' taste tester for review; beginning to now regret buying 2 bottles during Amazon lightning deals offer