Bonus points is you can pronounce it 
Drinking a Cadenhead’s Arran 17 tonight. Silky and and well-balanced and very satisfying.
(And also Mezcal Vago Mexicano, which is so so good.)
Not that most can afford it but The Macallan is releasing a 50 year and 72 year this Fall. Very rare and likely expensive. Expect to see quite a bit of innovation from them as they continue to age more Sherry Oak and reduce 12 year availability while expanding Double Cask and Triple Cask. Highland Park putting out a 50 year too soon.
Afford it? Try finding it! Only 200 released globally and my understanding is they are almost all going to “on premise” accounts (hotels, clubs, restaurants) so people couldn’t put it in collections so much. The 72 year is a Lalique bottling, but unconnected to the previous Lalique series, I believe. Then there’s a 1977 40 year Fine and Rare being released - this year’s addition to the Fine and Rare series.
All that said, I personally can’t put Macallan in the category of distilleries firing on all cylinders. They are so focused on these super premium bottles, and the double/triple cask - which way way over-woods them to me - they no longer care about making things that taste good. All this “innovation” seems like smoke and mirrors to jack up quantities, speed the process, use wood/yeast science to simulate complexities and increase efficiencies in ways that aren’t about the whisky but the clothes you dress it in. There’s nothing made for public release that is approaching the quality of the old 18 year. The Fine Oak, for instance, tastes just terrible. IMO, of course.
I like rare cask a lot, actually. I know ppl don’t like it bc it’s NAS but it stands up to the 18 imo. I adore the 25, but that’s a bit pricier.
Sarah,
Beauty of taste, we all differ, and I totally respect that. We get a few of each to sell in my home State, so it is available as far as 2 to 3 bottles can be “available”. I would counter your innovation claim, Double and Triple Cask (formerly Fine Oak) will ease some pressure on Sherry oak so that older age statements become more available. Right now 12 year Sherry oak gobbles up the ability for grow 17, 18, 21, 25, 30, etc…stocks.
Hi Kris - Indeed, tastes differ, and I certainly can’t fault that, but I do think quality has gone down objectively speaking as well.
If it wasn’t already obvious, I am personally disappointed in what’s happening there. I feel the brand is now more important than the product. The house that has openly stated that you can tell they care because they put everything in sherry cask, now putting a lot of focus elsewhere is hard to swallow. Maybe it’s nostalgia on my part, or distaste for the marketing behemoth. I think they are trying to grow at crazy rates, increase the power of the already super luxury brand recognition, and decisions are being made more based on that than on the whisky. It’s their prerogative, of course, but it makes me sad. But, if the Double and Triple Cask series frees up more space for the sherried line-up as you suggest, that would be great.
Kilchoman is definitely my favorite, can’t find anything I’d rather buy these days, except Armagnac.
I’ve been enjoying the Glenmorangie 18, which I think at its price point, is a really good value. Any thoughts on the Signet?
Macallan single cask prices have gone to stratosphere. However, their recent release of a 12 year old 100% sherry cask whisky is really good and inexpensive. Personally, i see much improvement especially after tasting their 12 year old “Fine Oak” cask.
12 year old Fine Oak is going away…they will have a 3 sku range of 12 year going forward.
12 year Sherry Oak
12 year Double Cask
12 year Triple Cask
10 year will cease to exist, and some of 12 year SO will now be set down longer to produce more if the later age statements. Sherry oak will exist at a price above double and triple cask by a few dollars.
What do you mean you see much improvement especially after tasting their 12 yo Fine Oak?
Was gifted a 12 year Aberlour the other day. I hadn’t had Aberlour in quite awhile, but this bottle is excellent. Kind of a sherry bomb but in the best way. Don’t remember enjoying this as much, so maybe it just struck my mood for whisky at the moment, but I’ll probably buy this again because at about $40 this represents good value IMO.
I meant to say 100% sherry oak tastes better than the Fine Oak. To my taste the oak influence (from fine oak) is slightly jarring whereas the sherry one is more integrated and seamless
Ah. Ok.
I have to say I’ve been very impressed with Lagavulin across the board, recently. High quality and consistency with very little BS. We don’t buy many standard distillery releases anymore, though we do taste quite a few - the Lagavulin 12 Annual Rare Release is an exception. The '15, which can still be found here and there, was superb and a great value at its price point. I feel I can say this online now that we bought as many as we wanted. 
I thought Lagavulin’s 8 yo was pretty good, too (for the price (sub-$60, iirc)). Do I think it’s better than the 16 yo? No, not really. But it’s different-enough to merit buying, imo.
Lagavulin isn’t “hip.” I’m fine with that.
Exactly - along the lines of what I meant by “very little BS.” I’ve had it with the fancy packaging and fake coloring and marketing hype driving prices. I was talking with the head of a whisky auction house recently who said there’s a grassroots movement to shift the focus back onto the “liquid-based value.” It’s sad that we have to have a special movement to get us to focus on what’s actually in the bottle.
I stumbled across this neat article on some of the history, hype, and culture of barrel choices among Scotch producers, and this thread seems like a good place to share it:
Drinking Cup
“The Oak Conundrum – Scotch Whisky Goes Barrel Crazy”
“…Marketeers play on this with labels boasting ‘Distillers Selection’, ‘Select Oak’, ‘Masters Collection’, ‘Paradis’ or ‘Single Barrel’ etc. All buzz words used to sell a unique barrel reaction. But how many of these releases are truly picked for their unique character?”
Lots of these “special casks” merely mask sub-par whisky.