A VERY impressive collection sold today - all the Fine and Rare except the '26, I believe, as well as some other big gun whiskys. I think all the F&R sold, with action from order bidders, phone and the room. Feather in both Zachys and Macallan’s cap.
Should mention for people who don’t know these, that the F&R are among the most collectible spirits in the world and waaaay above what most people (most definitely including me) can spend. There were a few other rarities as well, like the 50 year Dalmore. I’m more interested in the exuberance in the rare scotch market in general, and this sale was something of a benchmark.
This intrigues me. I’ve also been told by people who know more than me, that scotch is at it’s best from about 15 to 30 years, depending on many factors. After that, it just turns woody and alcoholic. This has been my personal experience, and I have collected several scotches of the already-mentioned age at cask strength, and they are wonderful. My next question, why are all these watered down ancient scotches going for mega bucks? This seems like a status purchase, bragging rights for the uber-rich and all that.
Hi Joe -
Your questions are also interesting. To begin with, I agree that the optimal age for scotch whisky is about 15 years of age in cask. It’s important to remember that the age refers to the time between distillation and bottling, not the time from bottling. So a 15 year whisky will be a 15 year whisky its whole life. And, as I’m sure you know, whisky doesn’t change a whole lot once it’s in bottle, though some of the older ones do show their overall age upon aeration, when opened for a while.
The number of whiskies that can maintain their balance (let alone benefit from time in cask) past this point drops off as the age increases. For example the like of Dalmore, Glen Grant and, to a slightly lesser degree but still certainly notable, Macallan, are a few that have proven they can remain beautifully balanced decades later (part of a true minority)… but even then there has to be serious cask selection. Just another case of no rule is hard and fast. And yes, if I know nothing else about what’s in the bottle, I would look for a 12 - 21 year old cask aged spirit (whisky or otherwise) to have the highest chance of getting something delicious.
In the case of the Macallans on offer at Zachys, I believe most of them were bottled (whether original or rebottling - I’m not the expert there) somewhere in the period from the early ‘60s to the late ‘70s, so mostly what was sold was indeed about 15 -40 years old off the top of my head.
Finally, sure, the most expensive whiskies are the trophies of collecting and probably won’t ever get drunk (just like the most expensive collectible cars probably won’t get driven) but it is NOT because what’s in the bottle won’t taste good that they aren’t being consumed. Age alone is also not what causes the top bottles to be more expensive. Some of the most expensive bottles ever sold fall right in the 15 - 20 years of age that we agree is optimal, and are probably wonderful to drink. Driving high-end prices right now, in addition to the “true gems” (in my opinion) which were bottled some time ago, are many a “Luxury” release that are more the result of the accountant or marketing director than a master distiller or cellar master… i.e. they rediscover an old cask that is possibly over the hill, but it is still rare and 50 years in the making, so they package and promote the hell out of it. There are plenty of old scotches that I have had that taste as dried out as a dusty old chest in your grandparents attic. They are still interesting and collectable (they might be the oldest examples from this distillery or that around), but possibly items that should have been bottled earlier if actual balance of the whisky is the goal.
I’m in no position to be buying these crazy expensive bottles, but with auctions like these plus a slew of recent articles in papers, Bloomberg, spirits journals, about strength in the whisky market, I’m keen to know what’s going on at all levels, not just the ones where I can play.
Hope that’s helpful, or at least interesting.
Best,
Sarah
Sarah, thanks for your insights about these old scotches. I guess my take on these is mostly negative, so sorry about that.
I think this is the auction we’re discussing. There’s one 15 year old, and the rest are 30 to 50 years old. I agree you have to look at the year it was bottled.
http://www.zachys.com/auctions/downloads/macallan.pdf
I agree completely with your 4th paragraph. At that age, it kind of comes down to trust. Do you trust the distillery that they found a special cask that aged remarkably well? Or did they take an old cask, felt it was good enough to put in a Lalique bottle and charge $25k for it.
For me, I am skeptical of scotches that old. Also, at about the $200 threshold, I am looking for cask strength whisky. In fact, a friend yesterday asked for my opinion of the Macallan 21, and I said at that price I want cask strength! So I feel that way 100x about these bottles. I don’t think any of the bottles on auction were cask strength. Heck, maybe 42% is cask strength for a 55 year old scotch, but typically the producer makes it very clear when a bottle is cask strength.
Yes, that’s the auction. As it happens, my memory was correct and there was a majority, albeit a small one, of the Macallan between 15 and 40 years, though I admit there were more older ones than I remembered.
By all means, buy what you like and drink what you enjoy! By my post I was not advocating that you or anyone else should chase these bottles. I don’t! Given your stated preference for cask strength, I agree you probably wouldn’t like them anyway. There’s a preference in my house for cask strength as well, though we know that’s a preference and not a reflection of intrinsic quality. I watch the market at all levels because I am interested in scotch as an enthusiast as well as a collector, so not just in ways that relate directly to my own buying and drinking.
The only thing I take issue with is the assumption that if something is older than what someone-who-knows-about-scotch told you is the sweet spot, it is just “woody and alcoholic.” You’re quite right to be skeptical of the notion of “it’s old so it must be good” (Lalique crystal and targeted marketing aside), but to imply that anything over 30 years is automatically dried out and undesirable, is mistaken. I’ve personally tasted a number of them which were balanced and wonderful. I’d love to taste the Dalmore 50 which was sold in this collection as it is reputed to be outstanding, possibly the best 50 year scotch ever made.
No doubt collectors who buy at the highest end of the spectrum have emotional motivations beyond wanting a great bottle to drink, including, but not limited to, the shows of wealth you mention. Some buy for investment, some want what no one else has, some want to complete verticals etc. etc…these and other things enter into the equation. But what’s in the bottle still means something, too.
I’m with Joe on this: big big BIG money on these watered-down whiskies is something that just doesn’t make sense to me.
Also coloring my opinion of this sale is that every Macallan I’ve had has been extremely underwhelming when compared to its peers (age & price). Macallan, Glenfiddich, Glenlivet, Glenmorangie ---- they’re like the Mondavis and Silver Oaks of the whisky world.
Out of genuine curiosity, Brian - which Macallan bottles from the '60s and '70s have you tasted, and which others from the same time period have you compared them against?
Also let’s talk about the notion of cask strength. It’s a relatively new thing to say that on a label, and a relatively new thing for it to be fashionable and sought after, or even really considered as a marketable product. Most whisky was bottled with the addition of some water to make it make economic sense for a long
long time. And you are right that many, if not most, whiskies still are brought down from cask strength through the addition of water so they can sell more bottles. And now many cask strength bottlings, labeled as such, are produced, and sold for higher prices because they get fewer bottles out of a cask.
BUT - older bottlings may very well be cask strength at 43 - 47% or even lower, as Joe alluded to in his post. If the whisky spends 25 years + in barrel, it may very well come down to a lower alcohol level naturally. Whether it does or not depends on a lot of factors, including tightness of staves, humidity, whether it’s the first use or second of the barrel -things like that. So a number of old Macallan bottlings, the original releases, may very well be cask strength at lower than modern cask strength numbers.
A very famous example of this very thing is the 1928 Macallan 50 year, which was bottled in 1983 (so technically a 55 year) and came in at around 38-39% AT CASK STRENGTH. I don’t recall exactly what they had to do to get it legal, since it was under the legal limit, but that’s one that any crazy whisky geek will point to - and it’s not the only example by a long shot.
Perfectly fine if you and others prefer the higher alcohol levels (my husband certainly does and I do too on the younger and more modern releases) - I really, really don’t care what people drink, don’t think my preferences should be everyone’s, don’t even prefer Macallan myself over many others, and have no affiliation with Macallan or any other distillery - but it’s mistaken to assume that all these old bottlings with 25+ years of age coming in at mid-40s have been watered down.
If you meant “watered down” to be a metaphor for low alcohol rather than a reference to the process, then I apologize.
I’m pretty sure the answer to your question is, “None.” That being said, {what I said previously}.
I don’t really care if it says “cask strength” on the label or not; the whisky either was or was not bottled at cask strength. What was done historically, and what was/is fashionable doesn’t really have any relevance to my preferences. I guess I don’t understand your point here.
And you are right that many, if not most, whiskies still are brought down from cask strength through the addition of water so they can sell more bottles. And now many cask strength bottlings, labeled as such, are produced, and sold for higher prices because they get fewer bottles out of a cask.
I know this. Again, I don’t think I get your point, unless your point is that c.s. bottlings represent poor value b/c they are “sold for higher prices.” — I would argue the opposite, fwiw.
BUT - older bottlings may very well be cask strength at 43 - 47% or even lower, as Joe alluded to in his post. If the whisky spends 25 years + in barrel, it may very well come down to a lower alcohol level naturally. Whether it does or not depends on a lot of factors, including tightness of staves, humidity, whether it’s the first use or second of the barrel -things like that. So a number of old Macallan bottlings, the original releases, may very well be cask strength at lower than modern cask strength numbers.
I know ---- if you saw Jorge’s original post advertising this auction then you’d see that I say exactly that (that these old Macallans might actually be at cask strength (even though I doubt it)).
A very famous example of this very thing is the 1928 Macallan 50 year, which was bottled in 1983 (so technically a 55 year) and came in at around 38-39% AT CASK STRENGTH. I don’t recall exactly what they had to do to get it legal, since it was under the legal limit, but that’s one that any crazy whisky geek will point to - and it’s not the only example by a long shot.
Interesting little story; I’d like to know what they did to get it to the minimum abv. threshold. Also, do you know why they called it a 50 year? Was the whisky removed from cask after 50 years, and then stored in an alternate container for the following 5 years before it was bottled?
Perfectly fine if you and others prefer the higher alcohol levels (my husband certainly does and I do too on the younger and more modern releases) - I really, really don’t care what people drink, don’t think my preferences should be everyone’s, don’t even prefer Macallan myself over many others, and have no affiliation with Macallan or any other distillery - but it’s mistaken to assume that all these old bottlings with 25+ years of age coming in at mid-40s have been watered down.
It’s not that I prefer higher alc. levels, it’s that I prefer to water the whisky down to my own preference — and that preference may change from one dram to the next, hence my preference for c.s. bottlings.
re: assuming that these bottlings are cask strength; this is what I wrote on that matter in Jorge’s thread:
If you meant “watered down” to be a metaphor for low alcohol rather than a reference to the process, then I apologize.[/quote]
I meant “watered down” the way you thought I did.
Your preferences are inarguable and I share many of them, including the desire to add water to the degree I desire.
My overall point, which I apologize was not clear, was that not all old whisky with lower alcohol has had water added, even if it doesn’t say cask strength on the bottle. I did not read the other thread Jorge began and I don’t keep track of what each person knows or doesn’t know based on their posts elsewhere. I responded to your statement referring to the older Macallans which were the subject of this thread, as “these watered down whiskies.” Whether you doubt that some of them are cask strength or not, and regardless of the fact that you know cask strength may be lower in older spirits, that statement to me called for correction and clarification, or at least caveat.
In addition, I thought to give a bit of information about the subject and history of cask strength bottling which some people might have found interesting - one can offer information for context and education, especially on a topic which might be unfamiliar to some people. I make no assertions about what is a good value or not, or which approach is superior. Whisky is a subject I find fascinating and I like to talk about it. I am privileged to have had some unique experiences in the world of fine and rare whisky and believe I have something to share. I hope someone reading this thread found it enriching, as I do reading what others with unique experiences post.
Sarah, I found reading this thread and your comments very informative. Thank you.
Per the 50 yo Macallan from a 55 yo barrel: is it possible that they used some whisky from a 50 yo barrel that wouldn’t stand on it’s own to bring it up to 40%?
Hi Sean - glad you found the discussion stimulating.
The 1928 50 year Macallan is an odd bird. It is likely that they called it a 50 year, even though it was actually around 55 years old, because Dalmore and some of the other distilleries had already released 50 year bottlings to some fanfare, and Macallan’s marketers wanted something comparable. That’s the popularly held belief, and I have not heard of another, more concrete explanation. The whisky in the bottle is below 40%, so it wasn’t brought up to that level through any addition, as far as anyone can tell, and the label states cask strength. I can’t say for sure, but I think the solution was a caveat of some sort on the label. In any case, it is clearly vintage dated at 1928, so no other vintage would have been used to top it up.
When my own knowledge failed me on this particular bottle, I asked my husband - the real expert - and he thinks he could find somewhere references to which actual casks were used if you’re interested, but he’s on his way to the airport so can’t get it right now.
Thanks for the interest and best regards,
Sarah
Purely speculation, but I thought that with some super old whiskeys, at some point they take them out of cask and start storing them in glass, simply because they don’t want to lose that 1% or so per year that evaporates off due to typical atmospheric conditions. I know that this has been done in Cognac & Armagnac to preserve older vintage spirits.
Shoot, I thought I was one of the cool kids, but I think Highland Park 18 is awesome. And Macallan 12 is quite nice for the price too. Glenfiddich sucks, no argument there, and I don’t want to argue with anyone who thinks otherwise. Glenmorangie was good BEFORE they changed their bottle shape. Seriously, I still have a bottle or two of port-cask or sherry-cask with the old bottle shape (bought on sale because they were changing the bottle/branding) and those whiskys are complex and tasty. Every Glenmorangie bottle I’ve purchased since then has been alcoholic, abrasive, industrial, and uninviting. Glenlivet is definitely the Silver Oak, or as I prefer to think, the Coca-cola of scotches - dependable, typical, possibly lacking but it is the standard by which all others are judged. I bought 2 bottles of the Glenlive 18 year old for $50 each, and I’m quite happy with that purchase. I also have a cask-strength Glenlivet called Nadurra for a similar price, probably a little cheaper, and that is a very nice dram. So I have no ill-will towards Glenlivet. It is what it is. In fact, I have heard that Glenlivet makes so much whisky that they will take their older casks, and if they don’t pass muster, they’ll just blend them down into a 12/15/18 year old because they have so many. So if anyone was trying to sell really old scotch, I’d probably trust them.
Lots of people love Macallan - it’s not 100% marketing - so liking the Mac 12 certainly doesn’t make you un-cool in my mind, Joe! I got to taste the new Macallan release at an event the other night (can’t remember its exact designation off the top of my head, but it’s the brand new one sitting around $300) and found it decidedly boring. But I enjoy the 18, which costs less.
It’s too bad Glenlivet is what it is today, because it didn’t used to be - there were some absolutely delicious ones made back in the day. I have a fondness for a particular 20 year release from a few decades ago that makes me very happy…We have an open bottle still, but it won’t be with us for long and it’s darn hard to find.
And don’t even get me started on old Highland Parks…not old as in the age of the whisky, I’m talking bottling year. Not that there’s anything wrong with the current releases - I like the 18 year as well!
Fun stuff.
Sarah, what’s your take on 21 year old Old Pulteny? That’s our most popular high end malt this year (the Gordon & McPhail bottling).
Roberto - I’m not that familiar with it, to tell the truth. I don’t think much of the official release (though I am told the '04 bottling is superior to the '08 and '10, and others do like it) and haven’t had the Gordon & MacPhail. I’d be willing to guess that’s better and it’s both well received and well scored. But you already know that. 
Just returned home from Costco. They had Macallan F&R 1940 35yr old for $22,999.99