Whisky Review: Macallan 12 Year Sherry Oak Cask

Macallan 12 Year has been a staple for decades, the go-to bottle when looking for a whisky gift that seems classy without going over the top. However it disappeared for a number of years from many markets as the distillery rolled out their NAS 1824 series. Those became exemplars of the era when distillers claimed with straight faces that 'age wasn't everything' while charging customers equal or greater prices.

But it seems like we're finally coming back around, with age dates returning or even increasing for some releases. The Sherry Oak Cask line has returned to its roots with an age statement and 100% sherry seasoned European oak casks, bottled at 43% with chill filtration but probably no coloring.

Macallan 12 Year Sherry Oak Cask

Nose: bright, rich sherry, dried fruit, nutty, vanilla, clean malt, moderate oak. After adding a few drops of water the sherry is less bright and the aromas are generally dampened down, with the exception of the malt becoming stronger.

Taste: sweet, thick sherry starting up front, turning more bittersweet with a little malt-y backing around the middle, slightly sharp oak tannins at the back. After dilution the sherry is more expansive and gains a pleasantly tart edge, and the oak is a little more rounded.

Finish: dry sherry, a little balsamic vinegar, dark oak tannins

Between this and the Double Cask, I think I prefer the latter. While this is more intensely sherried, the European oak gives it a sharpness that I find a little unpleasant. Overall, it just doesn't feel like a complete package, rather an attempt to make a fairly generic sherried whisky. I would personally prefer more refill sherry casks in the mix to let the spirit shine through, since that might help give it more of a malty roundness to balance the European oak tannins. As is, I would go for its American oak sibling or stick with other distillers making whiskies in this vein such as Glendronach or Glenfarclas.

Whisky Review: Macallan 12 Year Double Cask

The last 10-15 years at Macallan has seen more change than almost any in its existence. Product lines have been released, then disappeared with barely a whisper. A prime example would be their Fine Oak line, which blended European and American oak sherry casks with American oak bourbon casks to give a less aggressively sherried profile. However this was always seen as the 'lesser' Macallan in comparison to their classic Sherry Oak lineup.

Since Fine Oak was taken out of circulation, it has been partially replaced with their (small) Double Cask, which takes a page out of Edrington's other big name distillery Highland Park. While there are no bourbon casks here, they instead use sherry seasoned American oak casks to impart a different profile than the pure European oak sherry casks of their Sherry Oak line.

The final result is bottled at 43% with chill filtration, but probably no coloring.

Macallan 12 Year Double Cask

Nose: classic Macallan malt and sherry, fruit leather, strong vanilla and caramel, grassy/floral overtones. After adding a few drops of water is becomes richer, with deeper bourbon cask notes,

Taste: mildly sweet malt up with sherry overtones, some cardboard in the background throughout, becomes a little more rich with American oak butterscotch and light floral notes beginning in the middle, then a touch of bittersweet oak at the back. After dilution the American oak notes become stronger and the bitterness at the back is amplified, though not unpleasantly.

Finish: weak and thin - vague malt, sherry, oak, vanilla, mild nutty savoriness, and a little heat

While not a world-beater, this is a very competent malt. It feels like an interesting twist on the Fine Oak line it replaced, with the American oak still dominating over the sherry. Hazarding a guess the seasoning period for the American oak casks may have been comparatively short, so the wood speaks louder than the sherry. The American oak casks were still well chosen and give it a sweeter, more dessert-y character without going overboard on the tannins.

It feels comparable to something like Aberlour 12 Year, which makes sense given that their composition is similar. Back when Aberlour 12 Year was bottled at 43% I would say there wasn't much contest between the two, but if their prices are similar, I might have to give the nod to Macallan for still being bottled at the higher strength. I also might take it over something like Balvenie Doublewood 12 Year, which has always felt poorly integrated from the short finish compared to blending bourbon and sherry casks together.

Overall this feels somewhat representative of how the market seems to be coming back around after years of mediocre NAS releases. This has an age date, displays casks that are, if not wildly exciting, very respectable, and it doesn't cost the earth (by today's standards). I'm not sure if I need a lot more, but if 200 mL bottles were available for, say, $20, I would happily grab one for the occasional drink.

Whisky Review: A.D. Rattray Macallan 15 Year 1995/2011

Independently bottled Macallan has grown even thinner on the ground lately as the blending casks the distillery was willing to sell before the 2000s were bottled. This particular cask was a double rarity - teenage Macallan from an ex-bourbon cask, very different from the sherry-driven style they're known for.

This whisky was distilled on October 23rd 1995, filled into an ex-bourbon cask, then bottled on April 27th 2011 at 46% without coloring or chill filtration in an outturn of 334 bottles.

Thanks to MAO for this sample.

A.D. Rattray Macallan 15 Year 1995/2011 Cask #11251

Nose: rich bourbon cask influence - caramel, vanilla, graham crackers, and mild oak - apple/pear/apricot notes, powdered lemonade, gently floral, some ethyl acetate, a little dusty/musty (but in a good way). After adding a few drops of water the vanilla and floral notes expand, the orchard fruit are joined by berries, the oak becomes honied, and the ethyl acetate is better integrated.

Taste: sweet up front balanced by some alcohol heat, bourbon cask influence of caramel and mildly tannic oak around the middle, with a vague orchard fruitiness and citric tang throughout. After dilution the alcohol heat largely disappears, leaving big sweetness up front and less tannic oak in the middle, but the slide into the finish falls a little flat.

Finish: a little savory/tannic oak, clean malt, vanillin, a little fruit residue

While far more drinkable than the Whisky Galore Macallan, the clear ethyl acetate note throughout establishes a clear lineage. I think this one is rescued from disaster by more time and a more active cask, but the flaws keep it from being an unqualified winner. I can also see how this spirit works better when augmented with sherry casks. While it doesn't quite click for me, dilution helped in a way that makes me wonder if it would have been better off at 43% to begin with.

Whisky Review: Whisky Galore Macallan 10 Year 1992/2003

If Macallan is known for one thing it is its sherry cask matured spirit. While the "Oh crap, we can't keep up with demand" Fine Oak series blended bourbon casks (probably originally intended for blends) with a smaller proportion of sherry casks, the only way to get pure bourbon cask matured Macallan has been independent bottlers. This one is from one of Duncan Taylor's lines that was eventually dropped in favor of their NC^2 line. Both offered largely younger whisky at 46% without coloring or chill filtration at fairly reasonable prices.

This whisky was distilled in 1992, filled into (probably Nth refill) ex-bourbon casks, then bottled in 2003 at 46% without coloring or chill filtration.

Whisky Galore Macallan 10 Year 1992/2003

Nose: so much ethyl acetate, clean malt, a little green/grassy, unripe apples/pears/peaches, some vanilla in the background, very little oak, orange peel. After adding a few drops of water the ethyl acetate settles down a bit and it gets maltier, the vanilla is amplified but the fruit notes fade a bit into the background.

Taste: malt sweetness with an undercurrent of ethyl acetate throughout, a pleasant thickness around the middle, and a bit of savory oak/malt going into the finish. After dilution it becomes much sweeter, the fruitiness around the middle is amplified, and the savory notes at the back are joined by some orange peel, but there's also more grassy bitterness in the middle.

Finish: surprisingly long recapitulation of the aromas - bittersweet malt, grassy, unripe apples and pears, a little vanilla, distant oak, then straight ethyl acetate lingers for minutes afterwards

This was a somewhat disappointing whisky. While there's clearly some good, fruity spirit in there, it's the strong ethyl acetate notes throughout make it hard to enjoy what it has to offer. With slightly more active cask with more porous wood I can envision this being much better, but as is I feel like it would need many more years of evaporation to settle into something good. It also seems rather similar to the Whisky Galore Glenlossie I tried a while back, which also had some prominent ethyl acetate notes. I'm more than a little surprised that these casks were chosen for bottling, even with such a famous name attached, but I've questioned the bottling decisions made at Duncan Taylor during the 2000s and this seems of a piece with them.

Experimental Whisky: North British/Highland Park/Macallan Blend

I've made two different blends based on the pairing of North British grain whisky and Highland Park single malt, both components of Edrington's blends. The first contained only those two elements, while the second added Bunnahabhain to the mix. I finally got ahold of some Macallan and decided to see how that would influence the blend.

•17 mL Signatory North British 16 Year CS
•5 mL Highland Park 12 Year
•5 mL Highland Park 15 Year
•3 mL Macallan 12 Year
•3 mL water

North British/Highland Park/Macallan Blend

Nose: sweet grain, rich caramel, creamy vanilla, mossy peat with twigs, layers of sherry, fudge, thick malt, orange/lime peel, ham, incense, gently floral. After adding a few drops of water, the grain becomes more assertive, the sherry integrates with the peat and oak, and some seashore/shellfish notes emerge.

Taste: sweet grain with a layer of sherry on top up front, a solid undercurrent of well-integrated oak, becomes maltier in the middle with mossy peat and floral notes in the background, fades out with cotton candy and more grain. After dilution, it becomes sweeter up front and more integrated in the middle, with more peat, oak, incense, and baking spices at the back.

Finish: grain and malt, sherry residue, mossy peat, mild oak

It is perhaps unsurprising that this was more successful than the Bunnahabhain blend. Macallan and Highland Park are both owned by Edrington, which makes me suspect that they're sourcing their sherry casks from the same bodegas. Putting the two together amps up the sherry character without sidelining the peat as much as Bunnahabhain did. With that said, I don't think this is better than the blend made with Highland Park as the only malt component. This version may be more approachable, with the peat pushed somewhat into the background, but sometimes it's hard to beat the original.

The NAS Dilemma: Blessing, Curse, or Simple Reality? Part I

One of the growing trends in both the scotch whisky and American whiskey industries is the proliferation of 'no age statement' spirits. In some cases, these are new expressions, in other cases spirits that were previously age dated have dropped their claims. Change is almost always contentious, especially from long-time consumers who want to keep buying the same whisk(e)y that they always have. So is this good, bad, or something that we're simply going to have to live with?

Age dates present a certain amount of difficulty for distillers. First and foremost it means that they have to sit on stocks of whisk(e)y until they pass a certain point before they can be blended together to make their final products. Whiskeys/whiskies must be labeled with the youngest spirit going into the bottle. Even if, say, a bottle contained 99% 30 year old spirit and 1% 5 year old, the label would have to say that it was a 5 year old spirit.

In a sense this is a bind of the distillers' own making. For decades, marketing departments have created a perception among consumers that older spirits are inherently better and should command exponentially increasing prices with age. Old spirits were made to embody luxury and sophistication, while younger expressions were often thought to be downright plebeian.

Whether this is actually true is extremely complicated. Spirits extract flavors from barrels and oxidize at varying rates depending on a host of factors including temperature shifts (as the liquid heats up, its volume increases, pushing it into the pores of the wood), location in the warehouse, the quality and type of wood that the barrels are made from, and any other number of things that are difficult to quantify (though Buffalo Trace is striving mightily to nail some of them down via their Single Oak Project). So when new make spirit is dumped into two nearly identical barrels that are stored side by side in the same warehouse, it's entirely possible that years down the road they will taste very different from each other. This is why single cask/barrel releases are often so fascinating, as we get to see the variation that is normally swallowed by the skill of the master blender in creating a consistent flavor profile from a wide variety of casks or barrels.

So while most distillers have used the system of age dating to their advantage, many are now presented with a dilemma: demand for scotch and bourbon is increasing strongly right now, but few predicted this rise ten or twenty years ago when the stocks that are now ready to be bottled were originally laid down. So many are struggling to keep up with demand. But there is a potential out - dropping the age statements. Without that constraint, it's theoretically possible to use younger stocks that have the flavor profile the blenders are looking for to create something the same or at least very similar to their previous age dated expressions.

This is the tack that that Macallan is currently taking with their whiskies in the UK. The company recently announced that all of their whiskies younger than 18 years old would become NAS and from here on out be graded by color. Reactions have been, to say the least, mixed. As some have pointed out, Macallan has been selling NAS whiskies for years now, but they haven't always been flying off shelves. It is kind of galling to hear a major distiller intimate that there is any correlation between quality and color, though Macallan has stated that their whiskies will not be artificially colored with E150 caramel color. Older whiskies can actually be quite pale, while newer whiskies can absorb quite a lot of color quickly, especially from first-fill casks. So as far as I can tell, this is mostly a gimmick and just replaces the old constraint of age with a new one, which means that the blenders now have to find barrels with the appropriate color, not just the appropriate smells and flavors, to make their whiskies.

Macallan's new NAS "1824 Series" via Master of Malt

And we get to the ultimate question: are customers willing to pay the same, or sometimes more, money for younger whisk(e)y in the bottle, even if it tastes the same? There is a certain logic behind paying more money for older spirits. Evaporation means that a barrel can lose anywhere between twenty and seventy percent of the spirit it started with over the course of a decade. Warehousing isn't free. Aging whisk(e)y means that capital is tied up for a very long time. Older whisk(e)y can become over-oaked, making it nearly useless for anything but bucking up younger whiskies.

The announced prices for Macallan's new whiskies mirror the old age-dated expressions, with the entry level single malt coming in around $55 (same as the old 12 year) and rising from there. On the one hand, it doesn't feel quite right to be paying the same amount of money for younger whisky. However, it might take more work from the blenders to sample a larger range of casks to pull the NAS whiskies together. But ultimately we don't know and it's harder for a regular customer to judge what an NAS whisk(e)y should be worth.

Ultimately that may not matter. As David Driscoll of K&L Wines has noted, a lot of customers really just don't care. They're buying an NAS whisk(e)y because a friend suggested it, they heard good things about it, the brand has been talked up, or any other number of reasons. Some, like Black Maple Hill bourbon, have been flying off shelves despite the lack of age statements on their labels. And many will argue quite rightly that how the whisky tastes is more important than anything else. But for distillers, it is still a risk. They can do all the market research ever, but no change is guaranteed to succeed. Only time will tell whether Macallan's almost wholesale switch will come off well or if consumers will drift to other brands that continue to use age statements.

What are your feelings about the trend so far?

Whisky Review: Macallan Cask Strength and the Effects of Dilution

After drinking a dram of Macallan Cask Strength back in January, I decided to pick up a full bottle as it was on sale for only $55 in Oregon, roughly the same price as the much weaker Macallan 12 Year. While I think it's a good whisky at full strength, I was also interested to see what could be found if it was diluted down to a more standard proof. Ryan over at Value Whisky and Josh at The Coopered Tot have both run experiments with cask strength whiskies, which found that letting a diluted whisky 'integrate' with water produces a much more enjoyable dram. So I decided to take that path instead of diluting the whisky and drinking it immediately. I made dilutions of Macallan CS to 55%, 50% and 45% ABV and bottled them to let them sit for a few days before tasting them.

45% ABV Dilution


Nose: very nice balance between bourbon-y notes of sweet grain, vanilla and wood, with gentle sherry, jammy raspberries and raisins - very fruit-forward

Taste: slightly sweet and fruity up front, but not particularly rich, sherry is relatively subdued - rides underneath and grows towards the back of the mouth, pepper is still there - comes in strong then fades into mild bitterness

Finish: sweet, bright fruit, slightly bitter wood, noticeable residual alcohol, lingering pepper - still very much a sherried whisky in the end

I think this would be the perfect way to entice a die-hard bourbon or rye drinker into the world of single malts. The nose reminds me very much of a well-aged American whiskey, with strong grain-derived elements and the sherry taking a back seat. Overall I think I would describe this as the most pleasant strength to drink Macallan CS at - not the most interesting, but an easy sipper that should please quite a lot of palates.

50% ABV Dilution


Nose: more wood, dry sherry underneath, some sweeter, round fruit, vanilla, oatmeal

Taste: sugary sweetness up front, then muddled sweet fruits, big pepper, bitter chocolate or mocha near the back

Finish: wood, sweet sherry, chocolate/mocha, lingering pepper.

This is one of my favorite strengths for this whisky. All of the key flavor elements are present and assert themselves very nicely. The nose is strong without being overpowering, the palate is rich without singeing the taste buds, and the finish lingers with delicious bittersweetness. This is essentially what I wanted Macallan 12 Year to be and expect that it could be if the distiller was willing to offer it at a higher bottling strength.

The only downside here is that the relative youth of this whisky starts to manifest itself at this strength, with a bit more heat than I would hope for. I'd be interested to compare the No Age Statement version I have with the 10 year old cask strength Macallan that is sold in other markets. I've heard that the NAS version is made up of whiskies that are roughly 8-12 years old and I think it shows. A greater proportion of older whiskies would help to round it out a bit.

55% ABV Dilution


Nose: alcohol becomes more noticeable, more closed, poorly defined vanilla and sherry, light oatmeal and brown sugar

Taste: less sweet, but sugar remains as an undercurrent, bigger pepper, sherry becomes much stronger further back, bittersweet chocolate near the back

Finish: pepper, sherry, less wood, still distinctly bittersweet

There's nothing particularly wrong with this strength, I just feel like it doesn't offer anything that the 50% version doesn't, but there's also a stronger burn that detracts a bit from the experience. By the same token, it's not as full-throated as the undiluted cask strength whisky, so 55% is just an uncomfortable middle ground.

58.2% ABV - Full Strength

Nose: heavy Oloroso sherry with a hint of PX sweet raisins, bourbon undertones of sweet, malty grain and vanilla, sugar, bittersweet chocolate, general fruitiness, some nice floral notes after airing out

Taste: rich but not too sweet up front, fruit and sherry expand from the tip of the tongue, growing sweeter as the spirit spreads across the mouth, a huge burst of pepper blooms mid-palate and extends into the finish, drying towards the back of the mouth with a healthy dose of wood

Finish: lingering pepper and sherry, a touch of bitter wood and mocha, vanilla

The Real Deal. There's a reason they bottle it at this strength. Completely in your face whisky. Everything is big and it holds nothing back. There's a fairly strong amount of burn, which is somewhat unsurprising given the bottling proof and age, but it's a bit hard to pick out from the big pepper flavors on the palate and finish. As I mentioned above, I think this could be an even better whisky if there were a greater proportion of older malt in this whisky as it could do with just a bit more refinement.

There are comparisons to be made with Arran's Sherry Single Cask, as they both have similar flavor profiles, but the Macallan CS is younger and brasher. The Arran is big and bold with lots of pepper, but feels like a more integrated whole, whereas the Macallan jerks you around a bit. The Macallan also shows a much stronger sherry influence, which I'm guessing comes from first-fill casks. At the moment I'd have to give the nod to Arran as they're the same price here in Oregon, but eleswhere the Macallan would be a slightly better value.

As you can see, there are basically the same elements at each strength, but the manner and degree to which they present themselves can vary significantly. Personally, I'm most fond of the 50% and full strength versions. The 50% is probably the most balanced, with some of the harsher edges rounded out without becoming quite as subdued as the 45% version. However, there are times that the full-blast cask strength is what I want and it offers quite a ride. I'd highly suggest experimenting with dilutions at different strengths when you get a cask strength whisky. There are other perspectives to be found within when it's not running at full bore.

Whisky Review: Speyside Showdown

A few months ago I reviewed three different Speyside cask strength whiskies from Aberlour, Glenfarclas and Macallan. It so happens that I have the 12 year old whiskies from these three distillers as well. They present interesting facets of the way that Speyside whiskies can be produced. So it seemed logical to compare them to each other.

Aberlour 12 Year


Nose: richly fruity - red wine, raisins, raspberry preserves or fruit leathers - slightly sour, creamy sherry, very floral, a wisp of vanilla, nougat and toffee, nutty honey, which becomes sweeter, creamier and more rounded, with more dried fruits, Oloroso sherry, and an even more pronounced floral/perfumed character after adding a few drops of water

Taste: sharp, gingery sweetness up front, ginger continues throughout, fades into mixed creamy oak tannins, pepper, sherry, malt and slightly sour peat, which becomes sugary sweet up front with a slightly diminished ginger bite, gaining heat a bit further back after dilution

Finish: dry chocolate, figs, ginger, peat, sherry, slight bitterness, oak, peanuts and toasted marshmallow

This is the older version of the Aberlour 12 Year, at 43% with chill filtration. It was the first scotch whisky I ever bought. It was on sale in Oregon for $30, which made it the cheapest I could get my hands on. I was completely unprepared for the flavors it presented to me, especially because of my lack of experience with straight spirits. I tried it a number of different times over the last year or so, but it never really engaged me until recently. It may have just been a matter of trying it in a different setting, but everything finally clicked. Unlike the other two whiskies I'll be reviewing here, Aberlour ages this whisky in both ex-bourbon barrels and used Oloroso sherry casks, then marries the two varieties together before bottling. My guess is that the preponderance of the whisky comes from the ex-bourbon barrels as the sherry influence seems less pronounced than what is found in the other two whiskies. This lets the extremely floral nose of this whisky shine over the other elements. However, the nose is definitely the highlight of this whisky. The palate is pretty decent, but the gingery spiciness is just a bit too dominant and the flavors could do with a touch of a punch-up. But hey, for a $30-40, 12 year old single malt, it's really good. This makes me interested to try the newer version that is bottled at 48% without chill filtration. However that version has also been priced around $55, at which point it's going to be tempted to pony up the extra dollars for Aberlour A'Bunadh. But if I can ever find it closer to $45, I'll be sure to snap up a bottle.

Glenfarclas 12 Year


Nose: raisins, dates, chocolate, malt, raspberry, fresh sherry, honeyed malt underneath, some floral perfume, which becomes slightly diminished, with more honeyed grain, retaining plenty of gentle dried fruit and floral character after dilution

Taste: rich sugar and honey sweetened malt through to mid-palate, ginger spice arrives early and holds throughout, chocolate and dates come in near the back along with pepper, with the ginger bite becoming a little more gentle after adding a few drops of water

Finish: pepper, ginger, chocolate, dates and malt, which becomes slightly bitter like cocoa powder after adding water

Glenfarclas's whisky is aged entirely in ex-sherry casks, and it shows. The flavors are strongly driven by its aging, with the dried fruits and chocolate taking center stage with strong ginger in the palate and finish. However even with all of the sherry presence, it's actually a drier whisky than the Aberlour. Also, the chocolate/date/malt combo reminds me uncannily of Chocolate Brownie Clif Bars. Given that the 'Farclas often has roughly the same price-point as the Aberlour, I think it's close to a toss-up between the two. Go for the Aberlour if you want something with more malt character, go with Glenfarclas if you'd like a more sherried whisky.

Macallan 12 Year


Nose: moderately sweet sherry, PX/Oloroso split, red wine, raisins, raspberries, malt and vanilla underneath, slightly floral, with the raisins being emphasized over the sherry, and more vanilla after adding a few drops of water

Taste: jammy sweetness up front, with a burst of pepper mid-palate and chocolate-covered coffee beans leading into the finish, with more honeyed raisins, but less expansive flavors after dilution

Finish: sherried malt, edging towards bitter cacao

This is where the review gets slightly unfair, because I was tasting from a mini of Mac 12 whereas I own full bottles of the Aberlour and Glenfarclas whiskies. However, Macallan's 12 Year is also hands down the most expensive, reaching a moderately eye-watering price of $55 here in Oregon. I did try to get some breadth by tasting small samples over the course of a few months, so I still feel reasonably comfortable with my assessment. I wouldn't mind giving it another try, but only if I wasn't the one paying. Macallan sherry oak whiskies are, unsurprisingly, aged exclusively in ex-sherry barrels and it really shows. My initial impression was of very high proof sherry, without much else going on. After a couple more tries I was able to find some other smells and flavors, but the sherry still takes center stage. Its flavors were also somewhat less robust than the other two, which, when you also consider the small price differential between Macallan's 12 Year and Cask Strength whiskies, means that I'd strongly recommend buying the Mac CS instead of the 12 year. If you want a lower proof sherry driven whisky, the 'Farclas would be my recommendation, both in terms of flavor and price.

Looking over all three whiskies, I think they're already arranged how I would rank them. The Aberlour edges out the 'Farclas by a bit, having a bit more complexity and a slightly better price point. The Macallan trails in my opinion, with the whisky almost being overwhelmed by the sherry. However if that's what floats your boat, it's still an interesting dram. It's just that, as noted above, I think the Cask Strength version is a much better representation of what Macallan can do.

Whisky Review: Cask Strength Shootout

Over the course of the last couple of evenings, I've tried three different sherried cask strength single malts from Aberlour, Glenfarclas and Macallan. There were a fair number of similarities between each scotch, especially in terms of the method of aging, their lack of age statements, their bottling proofs, and the fact that each is a big step up from their 12-Year old, lower-proof siblings. At the same time, the fairly wide range of prices means that some seem more worthwhile than others. These reviews are slightly provisional as I tried all three at a bar and thus haven't taken my normal route of tasting a spirit several times on different days. However, they were all fairly healthy pours, so I did get to spend a fair bit of time nosing and tasting each whisky.

Aberlour A'Bunadh


Nose: maple syrup, rubber, tropical fruits, malt, oatmeal, a bit of raisins underneath, which becomes slightly less intense and gains hints of sherry and chocolate sauce after dilution

Taste: lightly sweet up front, followed closely by sherried sweetness that carries through the palate, developing malty chocolate near the end, which gains some oatmeal and maple syrup with dilution

Finish: long, chocolate malt and oatmeal

This is a non-chill filtered, cask strength Speyside single malt from Aberlour. Bottled right around 120 proof (there are small variations from batch to batch), it comes with no age statement, but is likely a blend of malts aged from 10-15 years exclusively in ex-Oloroso sherry barrels (I've also had the 12 year and don't detect significantly more barrel influence in the A'Bunadh). My succinct description of this whisky is that it's breakfast in a glass. The intense maple syrup and oatmeal flavors, especially on the nose, make that an inescapable association. Though it commands a fairly significant premium over the aforementioned 12 Year expression, it's also a huge step up in terms of the intensity and variety of flavors.

Glenfarclas 105 Cask Strength


Nose: slightly sour wine, malt, vanilla, sweeter sherry underneath and raisins, which shifts more towards PX-style sherry over time, with malt becoming more dominant alongside subdued raisins and sherry underneath with hints of chocolate, brown sugar and porridge after dilution

Taste: honey malt sweetness up front, big burst of pepper mid-palate, which transforms into a hit of bittersweet chocolate throughout the whole palate, while retaining the honey malt sweetness and pepper, as well as gaining a bit of tropical fruits after adding water

Finish: long, malt, pepper and bittersweet chocolate

It's a little bit difficult to find info on the exact details of how this whisky is produced. Glenfarclas is also located in Speyside and this whisky is clearly aged in ex-sherry barrels, but I haven't been able to figure out what type of sherry used to reside in the barrels. It is bottled at 105 British proof, which is the same as 120-proof or 60% ABV in the usual sense. As with all of these whiskies, there is no age statement, but what I've read suggests that all of the barrels that are blended to make the final spirit are at least 10 years old and I would say that it seems to be as mature as the A'Bunadh. The hefty dose of bittersweet chocolate found throughout the experience of consuming this whisky ticks it a few marks above the others, but it's hampered by costing at least $20 more than the next most expensive. As with the Aberlour, also I find this to be a significant step up from the lower-proof 12 Year bottling from Glenfarclas, both in terms of the range of flavors and their depth. Whether it's worth the extra coin is up to you.

Macallan Cask Strength


Nose: PX sherry, sweet raisins and malty vanilla, which gains some mocha and maple oatmeal after dilution

Taste: brief citrus sourness at the very begin, slipping into sherried sweetness, then black pepper and drier sherry finally leading into chocolate near the end, which becomes honey malt up front, with more subdued sherry, a malty middle, and chocolate and pepper near the end after dilution

Finish: glowing tropical punch, which becomes long with peppery coffee after adding water

In a slight divergence from the other two cask strength whiskies I tried, Macallan is part of the broader Highlands region rather than the Speyside sub-region. However, they claim that Speyside is their 'spiritual home' and its style is very similar to other Speysiders. Macallan has a tradition of aging all of their whiskies in ex-sherry casks. The Cask Strength expression is part of their Sherry oak line, which are all matured in casks made from Spanish oak. There is no age statement on this scotch (though it is now giving way to a 10-Year Cask Strength expression), but it seems as mature as the 12-Year, so my guess is that the average age of the whiskies blended to make this spirit is right around there. This was the simplest cask strength scotch I tried, being a fairly clear evolution from the basic Mac 12-Year, with the PX sherry-heavy nose. However, the smells and flavors are much richer and there is a certain appeal to the heavy dose of pepper that emerges mid-palate, helping to keep it from becoming insipidly sweet and unidimensional. Additionally, it can occasionally be found for as little as $55, which makes it no more expensive than the Mac 12 and an obvious choice over that expression. Up at $65+, I would say that the Aberlour edges it out, though the A'Bunadh is a little bit sweeter.

To line these three whiskies up, I liked the Glenfarclas a bit more than the Aberlour, which was an improvement over the Macallan. Additionally, the Aberlour is probably the best value out of the three, unless you can find the 'Farclas or Macallan on sale. However, if you're looking for a sherry bomb, it's hard to go too far wrong with any one of the three. You'll just have to try them and see which tickles your fancy.