Macallan Fine Oak 17 Year

Information: Ce Macallan a maturé dans trois fûts de chêne différents, un ex fut de Sherry Européen, un autre ex fut de Sherry mais cette fois-ci américain puis un ex fut de bourbon. Les deux fûts de sherry auraient contenu auparavant du Xérès. Et, c'est ce qui explique son nom "Fine oak" puisque la sélection de ces casks ont été méticuleusement choisi. Aucune coloration ajoutée et pas de filtrage à froid. Esthétique: Une belle couleur dorée légèrement ambrée. Une bouteille style "standard". Je veux dire qu'elle est identique à celle de mon 12 ans excepté la couleur et les mentions. Pour une bouteille qui vaut 300$ CAD, je m'attends à un design plus particulier (à côté je regarde mon Signet et mon Goyne 21 qui semble être une gamme complètement à part et pourtant ces deux autres m'ont coûté moins chers!). 5/10 Nez: Parfum très floral et doux. Sucré, mielleux, syropeux. Je le sens de loin! Très parfumé et intense. L'alcool au nez n'affiche aucune présence. Amandes grillées typiques de Macallan. Ok, ya du sherry quelque part là-dedans. Zeste de citron. Une complexité remarquable! 19/20 Bouche: Moins doux qu'il ne m'y paraissait. Texture grasse. Profonde arôme de vanille. Du chêne et du citron. Si vous n'aimez pas le boisé, ce n'est pas pour vous! Je ne déteste pas la pointe corsée, mais ça me surprend d'une édition haut de gamme de Macallan. Certains pourraient lui trouver un caractère trop difficile d'approche. 43%? Ça aurait dû être 46%. Ok, j'ai les herbes. Des herbes sèches. Miel et chêne épicé. L'épice et les herbes se confondent. Je ne suis pas certain si ces deux arômes distincts que je perçois. Enfin, il s'ouvre sur un bouquet floral. Le même qu'au nez. Ok, c'est complexe à souhait là dedans! 36/40 Finale: la finale est salée, sur cette herbe ou cette épice dont je ne réussit pas à mettre le doigt déçu. Pas certain d’apprécier cet arrière-goût un peu plastique, mais les épices sur la finale me donne l'eau à la bouche. Je suis entre-deux. Je comprends les revues partagées sur ce scotch. Je ne peux pas dire que la finale est un flop par exemple. Sans être exceptionnelle, elle est bien exécutée malgré tout. 21/30 Overall: Ouin... C'est pas mauvais, mais c'est pas wow! Mais, ça aurait dû être wow! Quelque chose m'empêche de faire wow! Quelque chose dans la finale, dans l'arrière-goût... Pourtant, c'était super bien parti! Bon ok... j'ai pénalisé pour cette boite de carton cheap et l'absence d'originalité de la bouteille, mais je l'assume! On paie le paquet et on nous sert notre filet mignon sur une assiette carton! C'mon! Le produit en tant que tel est de qualité. Elle est très bonne en bouche! Et, contrairement à la version 15 ans, elle pousse sa complexité et son originalité. 43%... really? Poussez au moins à 46-48% si vous voulez qu'on profite pleinement de ce champ d'arôme. Mais bon, j'ai déjà pénalisé de 4 points pour ça. Bref, j'aime bien, mais je reste sur ma faim. Dommage, je sens qu'il en manquait pas beaucoup pour un coup de circuit. 85%

Continuing on my exploration through some of Macallan’s releases, next up I have a sample of their 17 year that was bottled at 43% ABV. The nose is velvety soft leading with a mix of powdered sugar dusted cherries jubilee, sweet lemon lime custard and dusty leather-bound books then dark chocolate ganache drizzled over figgy pudding, light musty cavernous minerality and sweet pipe tobacco followed by brut champagne, pear tarte and orange blossoms that transitions to ginger, cloves, cardamom and polished antique furniture with light ethanol burn. The taste is a medium mouthfeel starting with a mix of sweet creamy tropical fruits, Black Forest gateau and dusty leather-bound books then blonde roast espresso, fig jam, light musty cavernous minerality and freshly lit pipe tobacco followed by brut champagne, caramelized pears and orange blossoms that transitions to ginger, cloves, cardamom and polished antique furniture with light ethanol burn. The finish is medium length with orange blossom, creamy tropical fruits, Black Forest gateau, figs, blonde espresso, light baking spices, dusty leather-bound books and polished antique furniture. This is an absolutely stunning dram that has a captivating yet velvety soft nose with a sweet mix of red berries, citrus and creamy custard upfront with the old oak notes, well-present but in the background, followed by decadent chocolate covered berries, a cavernous musty minerality and faint sweet pipe tobacco which leads to mildly sour citrus, florals, light spices and antique furniture that carries over to palate with an exceptional harmonious balance along with additional flavors of tropical fruits, Black Forest gateau and espresso that finishes on the sweet side with creamy fruits that fade towards a chocolatey dessert with espresso whilst sitting in an antique armchair reading a vintage leather-bound book. For a 43% ABV dram, the flavors are far richer than I expected and highlights that low ABV drams aren’t always thin with light flavors but I’d still really like to taste this at a higher proof as those flavors weren’t quite as bold and dense as I’d preferred. Thank you so much @jonwilkinson7309 for sharing this delightful dram with me as it was a special treat to taste a discontinued Macallan and I wish these were still around without the secondary asking prices.

Another review that I am carrying over from Barreled. Sample again from Lee. Like the 15 YO fine oak, this is 43% ABV and matured in ex bourbon and sherry casks. The color is more of an amber gold. Just like the 15, I don't know if it's colored or chill filtered. The nose is oak forward. Lots of floral honey. There is caramel and toffee, but it's a bit muted. A combination of dried and fresh fruits, especially pears and apricots. Some vanilla as well. The nose is improved from the 15. Additional time in the glass creates a fuller nose but sadly I didn't have enough time to spare to see it's full potential. The palate has lots of oak spices but they don't overpower you mouth. Light sherry sweetness. More oak and a hint of wood smoke. It's less lively than the 15 but a little more refined. The mouthfeel is less oily than the 15 and is slightly drying. The finish is medium long and laden with oak spices. Is this better than the 15 year old fine oak, yes. $120 better, not even close. For $240 per bottle I would have expected much more. I go back to the Glenlivet 15 and see it shine compared to the 17 and 15 year Macallans. As odd as it might sound, I immediately compared these three to guitar pickups. You can take the same guitar and put 3 different pickups in it and get 3 totally different sounds. That's what this is like to me. Somehow I am equating taste and smell to tones. The Macallans are focusing on the highs and are very bright sounding, while the Glenlivet is warmer sounding and boosts the mids. Maybe I'm just crazy. Anyways, I would not buy this at $240, probably not at the $120 price of the 15 either. 3.5

This review has been transferred over from the Barreled App. I initially reviewed this back in Nov of 2016: So, I'm down to about 4-5oz of the wonderful Macallan 15 year fine oak left and I really want to do a side-by-side comparison with the 17 year version. It's now or never... At first glance, there is a very noticeable difference in color. Both are a shiny, golden yellow with the 17 showcasing a slightly darker, shadowy hue as it sits in the Glencairn. Both come in at 86 proof and neither produce very noticeable legs after a vigorous swirl. Upon nosing them they both really bring fresh, vibrant oak to the forefront. There's a bit more sweet vanilla in the 15 year, while the 17 is nicely balanced between vanilla and sherry. Very nice. On the tongue, they both have a magnificent fresh oak blast that really makes you take notice. The smooth and refined Macallan flavor profile immediately pops to mind and I instantly love them both, equally. The finish is so luscious that you can't really go wrong with either one. Long, smooth and freaking delicious. It's so hard to bash the 17 year, even though it's substantially higher in price than the 15. I know the 17 is $230+ and that's expensive as hell. I'm reminded it's Macallan we are talking about here so you are expected to excuse the price tag and just remind yourself it's a luxury whisky. Well, I can't always do that but this time I gotta give them a pass. Pony up the money, fanboys. Its Macallan! Cheers. (Drops mic). Lol

This is a beautiful Scotch I've saved for years until I finished graduate school. I got it for free from my cousin who did marketing for Edrington in Manhattan. She did not let me touch the Macallan 25, but let my brother and I have the 12 and our choice between the 17 or 18, among other freebies. I chose the 17 since it was not a common release and my cousin also preferred it. When I learned of the price for this Scotch ($150-200), and the fact the product was discontinued, I decided to save it. Five years later I finally opened this bottle in August and despite the degradation of the cork it's been an enjoyable experience. I'm glad I got this for free since I would never pony up that much money for a bottle until I'm financially secure. It is a really great Scotch, but there's no way I'd ever pay close to $200 for something like this. The sherry influence is somewhat muted despite two of three barrels used for aging were ex-sherry casks. I actually get more of a double oak maturation flavor I find in American single malts and double oaked bourbons. If I didn't know any better I'd say this was a light, refined Jim Beam Double Oak that was finished in sherry for less than a year. Another whiskey I've had recently that comes to mind is Rua American Single Malt, but this is lighter. It honestly tastes much more like a bourbon than Scotch, albeit a bourbon with low char. I think the tasting notes by the expert reflect this comparison.

So, I'm down to about 4-5oz of the wonderful Macallan 15 year fine oak left and I really want to do a side-by-side comparison with the 17 year version. It's now or never... At first glance, there is a very noticeable difference in color. Both are a shiny, golden yellow with the 17 showcasing a slightly darker, shadowy hue as it sits in the Glencairn. Both come in at 86 proof and neither produce very noticeable legs after a vigorous swirl. Upon nosing them they both really bring fresh, vibrant oak to the forefront. There's a bit more sweet vanilla in the 15 year, while the 17 is nicely balanced between vanilla and sherry. Very nice. On the tongue, they both have a magnificent fresh oak blast that really makes you take notice. The smooth and refined Macallan flavor profile immediately pops to mind and I instantly love them both, equally. The finish is so luscious that you can't really go wrong with either one. Long, smooth and freaking delicious. It's so hard to bash the 17 year, even though it's substantially higher in price than the 15. I know the 17 is $230+ and that's expensive as hell. I'm reminded it's Macallan we are talking about here so you are expected to excuse the price tag and just remind yourself it's a luxury whisky. Well, I can't always do that but this time I gotta give them a pass. Pony up the money, fanboys. Its Macallan! Cheers. (Drops mic)