We've set your shipping destination to:
Prices vary based on delivery destination (it's a tax thing), so please change it if you're not shipping within United States as it might affect the price! (Why?)
This is the new no-age-statement Single Malt Scotch Whisky from the famous Speyside distillery of Macallan. Macallan's new range has done away with age-statements and instead focuses on the colour of the whisky. The concept being that the older the whisky is the darker it will be... Regardless of how true this really is, it's certainly a great whisky packed with assertive vanilla and citrus flavours.
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.
Please enter your details to make it easier for us to help you further.
The legal stuff: not providing your contact details may mean we have to delete your
comments if another member of our community complains about them. Whatever happens though, we’ll never share
your contact details unless you specifically tell us we can.
Please click here for more details.
It's like having intercourse in a canoe.
26th January 2017
Legs are slow and oily, even after chill filtering, suggests higher temperature fermentation.Nose - sweet, dark chocolate, citrus, malty , nutty and spicey due to short fermentation. Vanilla.Palate - sweet, orange, spicey.Finish - estery, sweet, orange, chocolate. Typical Speyside with short fermentation and I suspect very very narrow cuts with lower cut in the high 60s percentage ABV. Reasonable for the price, but nothing too special.
8th January 2017
A nice low cost introduction to this well known brand. Could benefit from a little more cask time. Open up with water.
31st December 2016
To be honest tried because 007 drank macallans. Couldn't afford 50year old so tried this one like it enough said!!
30th October 2016
Very smooth, easy on the nose, great end result
28th October 2016
The best single malt I've tasted till date
19th October 2016
I just bought a 5cl sample after I have tasted several whiskys for the last 3 years. First of all I noticed the lemon and chocolate notes in the nose and everything just works so well together. In the mouth the spirit is very smooth and round.Compared to Ben Nevis 10 years old, which I have tasted side by side, there are many similarities. Both taste like orange and chocolate, the BenNevis (non chill filtered, 46%) more pronounced and richer but the Macallan Gold with much more finesse. There is so much more going on here. The citrusy and ginger tones together with the subtle bitter oak complement the tasting notes of the BenNevis. Don't know much whiskys that are so harmonical, Glenfiddich 18 for example. One point of criticism is the rather short finish. But I think it's very good!
10th October 2016
I first has a bottle of the 10 year old, prior to this being available. But this really isn't that different, maybe a little less complex, but it has the same overall feel and taste. It still ranks as one of my preferred choices and if you like very smooth malts rather than those with peaty kicks I still recommend it.While at a whisky tasting festival a while back I asked why they'd dropped the age reference and they skirted around giving an answer. I was told the gold was primarily made up of an 8yr, and then mixed with others much older. they made the case for this giving a better result than a straight up 10yr but of course they would say that. It is obviously due to cost if you can sell a drink 2 years earlier you can get more money out of it.For everyone claiming stating their whisky drinking credentials and claiming its an aweful drink, it really means nothing, drinking this stuff is entirely subjective. I happen to really like it, i don't expect everyone else to have the same opinion. It should perhaps be a little cheaper as there are others out there as good for less.
26th September 2016
It was love at first sip, smooth warm without the afterburn.
3rd September 2016
Some times reviews just don't make sense This is a cracking drink try it I'm 67 done alot of whiskeys in my time they don't come much smoother tastes like good stuff to me
13th August 2016
I've been drinking whisky for 20 years so I know my fair share, and this whisky straight out sucks. Nothing amazing. Better available for the price range. Much prefer the Macallan 12 which can be had for only slightly more in cost also. Makes me wonder what this Macallan is aiming to serve. Seems to be targeting the noobs. In essence I wouldn't recommend Macallans too often, excluding the 12 and 18. Beyond this it really is an overrated brand I've concluded over my years. It's like the Apple of Whisky. The price has more to do with clever marketing and pricing strategies (I have an MBA), and people ridiculously are still prepared to pay for it because they're suckers.
9th August 2016
A betrayal of every positive characteristic of Macallan that I remember. Uncouth fire water.
1st August 2016
I received one as a gift, it's ok. I will not buy it for sure, now that i drink it, rather spend my money with other single malts. But with a good cigar, the mix is very good and complex.
20th July 2016
Disappointing! Bland! Lucky Bought it at Costco so I didn't pay through the nose (no pun intended) at Costco price it's okay,but just okay. saw it at another online liquor store for $99.00!
8th July 2016
So, reading all the comments ... um yeah . You have to make up your own mind on this one. My mind says that is you're willing to pour a £35 bottle down the drain cause you don't like the taste, stick to milk buddie , or at least rather give someone else the bottle to enjoy it.This brew inst that bad that you need to pour it away, yes its not amazing like the other Macallan's but it is still very enjoyable. It has a great taste and smell. The honey is there for sure, maybe even a tad too much imo! But it grows on you and you will have another after the first, second , third and fourth ...fifth Would I buy it again ? No , not at that price. Only Because you can get much better single malts for the same price range that will do so much more for your palette. Drop the price of the GOLD to by £10 and ill buy 2 bottles without a doubt. (resellers) Don't hike the price just cause its Macallans, put it in its correct price range and you'll sell more bottles. I promise !
29th June 2016
Purchased a bottle before reading any reviews. Macallan is usually very good. After reading the reviews with mixed responses I was apprehensive about opening the bottle and I was thinking about returning it unopened for a refund. I'M GLAD I DID'NT, This whiskey is wonderful. Very smooth finish and is fragrant to the nose. Been drinking scotch whiskey for 41 years and have tasted everything imaginable. I will keep this one and add it to my collection.
26th May 2016
Like angels dancing on your tongue.
22nd May 2016
First had it in a pub a couple of months ago and just bought a bottle. I am not an expert, but this is a smooth drink whose character changes drastically with ice. Just a mellow, mellow experience and for that, it's worth every penny.
26th April 2016
Don't waste your money. There have been too many corners cut in the name of profits. I will never buy a Macallan again. Bland is the best word I can use to describe this one. Very little in the way of either nose or flavour. To say it's not complex is a huge understatement. I have tasted whisky that was half the price of this one that had much more character. Macallan, I suggest you re-think what you've done with your whisky before you lose all the rest of your customers as you've just lost this one!
20th April 2016
I absolutely love it.
23rd March 2016
I received a bottle of this as a Christmas gift from a non whisky drinking friend. I was hesitant to open it for fear of disappointment. I'm not usually big on NAS whisky, and this one has several poor reviews. After two months of waiting I poured my first sip today. I'm sorry I waited so long. The MoM tasting notes are dead on. This really is a pleasant whisky. No, it's not super complex. It is in fact quite mild tasting to me. There are enough flavors in there to keep it interesting though. Compared to other's in it price range it is amazing.
8th March 2016
I can't believe these guys with their poor ratings. Could it be a bad cask (is this possible?) or a brand bashing ring (shame). I doubt Macallan would risk their reputation on a poor product. I found that it lived up to what the label said and went out and bought a second bottle. It felt smooth like many older Scotches with plenty of flavor, etc.
25th February 2016
Not sure what these other reviewers have been tasting. I tasted today for first time and really enjoyed this glorious honey nose and found it smoother than young macallans I am not a great fan of. Will be buying a bottle for my collection
30th January 2016
Not the usual standard and i still prefer to know the age of the whiskey though
28th January 2016
I think all the reviewers above that rate this whiskey less than 4 stars dont know what whiskey is. I 've been drinking whiskey for thirty years now. I've tried more than 100 malts and this is one of the best( for the price). I know is a matter of taste but this is so smooth and sweet that you just cant say is no good. Age dont matter in this kind of quality. When you cannot see the macallan difference what can i say ??? Superb dram!
27th January 2016
20th January 2016
I was given a bottle for xmas and was hoping that the recent reviews were wrong, unfortunately they were right. Smells ok but the taste is thin and has a rough burn. Wanted more but very disappointed.
30th December 2015
Huge Macallan fan, but....this was a major disappointment! Here, let me get you started for the intro on the back of the packaging..."Our distillers have abandoned the time honored craft and see the advantage of short cutting..We're banking on the fact that our customers won't notice and if they do, they will think it's so bad that it must be the new standard. If this is the new normal for Macallan,....I'm done with Macallan!
29th December 2015
I wouldn't pour it down the drain as some have claimed. It's not horrible, but it's severely overpriced for what it is. You can do much better for half the cost with a whiskey.
I paid more for this gold than I did for my first 12y/o a few years back but Im getting half of the flavor and half of the complexity, I will never buy a nas Macallan again,I think they need to mothball the distillery until they can again make a fine wisky.
10th December 2015
I've bought this bottle because I trusted the Macallan brand, I have good memories of a very nice 12 year old that I had sampled a while ago. But the Gold is simply bad whiskey and expensive at that. It tastes young, flat, bland, with nasty rough undertones. I don't understand people giving it a good rating, are they paid marketing shills, don't they know what a good whiskey is, or is the production inconsistent and they lucked out on a decent bottle? Mine is one that will have me approach Macallan products with caution from here on out.
8th December 2015
I have a bottle of Macallan Gold here (a gift) - and after reading all these reviews, I'm not sure I want to open it!!I know that temptation will win, and I shall open it. Hope it is a decent drink! I'll be back and let you know my thoughts.Fingers crossed!
19th November 2015
This is awful. I literally just poured it away. Nasty, harsh, burning.
14th November 2015
It wasn't the worst I've tasted, but for $70 canadian, I wish I would have kept my $70 for my dream dram piggy bank. Again, it's not horrible. The nose was almost one dimensional, with your basic notes... vanilla, citrus, etc. I would use it if my regular company would come over. Worth tossing in a decanter and not show off the bottle. This is not to discredit Macallan. The rest are all fine products.
29th October 2015
Usually the first fill of a whiskey is very harsh and of poor quality. I think Macallan is getting rid of their waste product. What a waste of money!!!!!!!!!!!!Need my refund too expensive for a poor quality whiskey.
18th September 2015
Smooth and very easy drinker. It doesn't have a longer lastIng flavour. Good intro whisky for someone new to the world of whisky. This is a whisky for mid-week or if you wanted a catch up with a friend over several drams. I love speysides and the highlands, I would buy another bottle of this but would probably go for a GlenDronach if it was on the same shelf.
20th August 2015
A strong,smooth and creamy whisky. don't understand what all the so called experts are moaning about.As for North Americans telling anyone about better whisky, nah! i'm not having that.If you drink grouse stick to it. This gem isn't for you. Here's tae wha's like us
23rd May 2015
A bit harsh when neat. Much better when 50/50 with water. I prefer the original.
19th May 2015
I received "Maccallan Gold" as a gift because I had once had Macallan whisky at an event and it was the best I had ever tasted. Obviously it was a different product. This one is very harsh, it burns all the way down so that I can taste no suttleties. It does warm one on a very cold night but any whisky will do that, even our very good Canadian whisky. I will have to try this with water, something I never do because I like my whisky neet. Such a shame that so much money was wasted on an inferior product.
27th April 2015
This is not a smooth rich malt as I remember Macallan. It is positively harsh, thin. I have given it away after the first 2 drams. (The recipient prefers a blend which she dresses up with lemonade). I had selected a bottle of MacAllan 12 year old but rejected it when I found the price was £64. What a serious marketing error the no age statement is, but it is content of the bottle not the label that I judge
12th April 2015
Drinking whisky isnt only about pouring the whisky down ur throat. I want information about the stuff I buy. I want to know what casks are used, 1 st fill?, 2 fill? etc, artificial couloring?, chill filtration? etc. I want to know about the distillery, their stills, location etc. It should be painstakely obvious that I would want to know the age of the whisky too.Hey why dont they remove all labels on all kinds of spirit, mix em up scotch, bourbon rum etc...what a challenge that would be. We can get togehter and guess what we are really drinking...Dont think so. Stop the NAS rubbish
2nd April 2015
Ain't it funny that so many of those who excoriate this rather nice whisky can spell neither "Macallan" nor "whisky"!
10th March 2015
I read reviews and was nearly put off because I too do not like trend for NAS on bottles. I took a chance and surprise surprise it's a good dram. Not spectacular however smoothish with a little smoke, nice honey and longish finish. A little overpriced but nowhere near as bad as these reviews make out.
24th February 2015
tried this at an airport bar near Heathrow. at first thought the bartender poured a JW Red by mistake. kept adding water to try to make it drinkable but never got there. MacAllan mailed it in on this one; NAS movement to mass produce whisky resulted in poor quality. do not buy this swill, there's better stuff out there still.
26th December 2014
Very good! perfect for a new scotch drinker, I love
24th December 2014
Poor taste and weak notes. Entirely poor if I could give it 0 out of 5 I would.
17th November 2014
I'll start off by saying that I've nothing against NAS malt whiskies - Old Pulteney Navigator is a fine dram. I used to enjoy a Macallan - especially the 10yo Cask strength from the distillery and the basic 10 was fair enough but too pricey for what it was. These days, I stick to the excellent Glendronach range or the Aberlour A'Bunadh for my sherried whiskies - far better and much cheaper!
16th November 2014
don't like the change to colours prefer the age system if it is'nt broken don' fix it
13th November 2014
Can't really understand the poor reviews here..this is lovely.,fruity, spicy, rich and excellent value for such a cheap Scotch...really smooth finish and the sherry comes through strongly...it's not amazing but a perfectly drinkable, enjoysble and cheap whisky
21st October 2014
Very disappointed !
14th October 2014
This isn't scotch...
29th September 2014
I willingly paid $300 for an 18 year old McCallan three years ago. This NAS is just bad scotch. Dec 19/13 poster summed it up the best. It is a vile nose. The taste is better, but really is this what the McCallan people want us to remember? This scotch is actually available at the LCBO in Ontario Canada. I strongly urge any and all potential buyers to avoid this awful abomination. The value is not there and the company has clearly decided to trade on their name rather than building on it. I hope you make lots of money McCallan, you will not be getting any more of mine.
26th September 2014
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 customerJ L
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.Sorry Macallan
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