I tried it last week along with the Glenlivet. I thought both were solid. Of the two, I preferred the Glenlivet, but I don’t think you would be unhappy with this. David OG is right that a drop or two of water is a good idea.
I’m no fan of Macallan, and don’t care much for anything they’ve released in recent memory, but as to the not being labelled part, that isn’t odd or objectionable to me. The distilleries can be very picky about what you can call things when you buy a barrel. Some distilleries even have set names for the whisky that can’t be labelled as such. If you want to drink it, it shouldn’t matter. If you want to sell it, it can be problematic.
I admit I’d be curious to try this one, though not enough to buy a bottle myself.
Many of the single cask offering from K&L are ‘t-spooned’ from another distillery and are technically not single malts. This offering appears to be a single cask, single malt and I’ve known David OG for, well, forever (he and my son were grade school chums) and I do not doubt his identity of this whisky as from The Macallan. On the other hand, The Macallan went into the non-sherry cask business after a period of poor sherry cask selection in the late 1980’s, from which they still have not recovered. I have not tasted this offering, as I’m traveling out of the country. Given the history of The Macallan, however, I am more than a little skeptical of the quality of the cask in which it was aged. If anyone buys one and finds it sulphury, consider yourself warned. I have zero tolerance for sulphur in whisky, so also take my view with a grain of salt.
I have grown to respect the cask selections by the team at K&L. When they first started out, they were offered and sold casks that had been rejected by other independent bottlers and sellers. Over the years, they have become more sophisticated and have developed a good relationship with the independent bottlers and distilleries whose whisky they sell.
I have no dog in this fight. But I do have to point out yet again that HOT TAKE™️’s hot take is off. This is a cask strength whisky, clocking in at 63.4% ABV. Standard Macallan 12 year is nowhere near that ABV…
I don’t find it odd or objectionable, but I would expect a lower price as a result thereof. $110 for a 12 yo Macallan (at least it’s c.s.) doesn’t strike me as having been discounted.
I don’t consider single cask independent bottlings, especially at cask strength, to be particularly comparable to standard distillery releases, even of the same age. That’s as a general statement, not specifically relating to this item.