Macallan Double Cask 12 Year

Oaky, buttery, sugar

Tastes like bourbon - decent bourbon, sure, but if I wanted that I could pay much less. Too sweet for a scotch. Too expensive. I actually prefer the double cask gold which is cheaper. Update: ages well in the bottle. Bumped up to the gold.

Following up my previous tasting of Macallan 12 Year Old Sherry Oak Cask with a review of the Macallan 12 Year Old Double Cask. The Double Cask is aged in a combination of American and European Sherry oak. It uses more American oak than the 12 Year Old Sherry Oak, and leaves out the ex-bourbon casks featured in the 12 Year Old Triple Cask. It’s also presented with its natural color at 43% ABV. Nose: Soft and subtle. Vanilla, cream, raisins, faint cinnamon, and floral wisps. The nose of this dram is so surprisingly reserved, it almost behaves as if it’s too refined to come out and play. Palate: Silky, sweet, but not syrupy. Vanilla, warm cream, medium-grade honey, cinnamon, and oaky green apple skins. Still has the dried fruits, but not to the degree of the Sherry Oak. Less shy than the nose, but still rather subdued. I will say the mouthfeel is very good. Macallan gets a really unique tannin profile for this bottle, almost like something akin to rounded, velvety, “micro” tannins. Finish: Medium length and sweet, with a profile similar to a raisin cookie. The oaky tannins drag a bit. Pleasantly warming. Overall impressions? I’m a bit torn. First, there’s the price, which also seems to divide the whisk(e)y community. Are you getting enough VFM?* The VFM is subjective and debatable, but not completely outrageous at the lower end of Macallan’s offerings. Second, (to me) there’s something almost artificial about this dram, as if it was so meticulously crafted to check the boxes of a flavor profile, it lost its character in the process. Is it possible to craft robotic-tasting whisky? So, the verdict. I previously described this pour as something similar to vanilla ice cream or mashed potatoes - it works but it’s kind of boring and leaves you wanting more. At this price range, I expect it to stand out more and mouthfeel alone is not enough to justify it having a permanent place on my shelf. While I don’t want price to unfairly factor in to my rating (if it did, my score would be lower), it’s solidly average because while the mouthfeel may stand out, I don’t find the flavor or character that remarkable. If I was really yearning for the Macallan experience, I would try to purchase the half-sized bottles because I can’t justify a whole bottle of this sitting on my shelf for the prices I usually see it going for ($60-$80). 3.5 ~ 81 ~ A Bit Above Average *TL;DR Epilogue: Ultimately, the issue with whisk(e)y pricing and whisk(e)y quality is that there’s a certain expectation that this should be a fairly linear relationship. Less money, lower quality; more money, higher quality. In the real world though, this doesn’t hold true. You could make arguments for it being a skewed bell curve or logarithmic relationship, but ultimately the amount of money you pay is no guarantee or promise of quality. And that is what can be so frustrating with drams like Macallan - you pay the premium and want to expect the high quality they claim to deliver but there’s no indication they can (or will) make good on it. In any case, I’ve clearly pondered this too long and should probably pour myself a dram of something else.