Has anybody ever encountered this Scotch?

It has a great “shelf talker.”

https://www.klwines.com/p/i?i=1434678&cid=EML-#%23TrackingCode%23%23

Not I, but Signatory is usually pretty reliable. For the price, it’s not much of a risk.

Given what the distillery was producing at that time, I’m a very hard pass.

A 12 yo Macallan that’s not even labelled as Macallan? LOL!! This strikes me as a classic case of, “A fool and his money …”

Apology for thread drift, but is anyone familiar with Macallan from Gordon& Macphail that was distilled in 1998 and bottled in 2015? Thanks.

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.

Wow, yes!

My opinions are not nuanced for scotch, but I poured it for people who are “Scotch Berserkers” and it was very well received!

$110 for essentially 12 year old Macallan (the Veuve Clicquot of Scotch)

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.



Good points. Much appreciated.

The email was very good at stirring up a feeling of “must have it!”

I’m gonna get one to serve my Scotch Berserker friends and see what they think.

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… [oops.gif]

+1 on signatory.

I was also debating between this and the Glenlivet cask strength currently on offer

It’s still Macallan, right? neener

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.

Sure, but it’s an IB, so you can’t really compare to the typical macallan pricing. (different proof, different barrel type/aging regimen, etc)