I think what's in here has been well enough documented. So lets just jump in?
Nose - So for me at least this is pretty classic compass box, really old in nature, and not much more. I think the low abv is a serious concern here. So yellowed paper, leather, and I guess old wood shelving? I can't say that I'm getting that per say. A bit of leather for sure. Some musty notes, but I'm just thinking vanilla from bourbon barrels. Maybe that's me. Does the grain really come in or is that the macallan first fill bourbon? Who knows. Some hints of red fruits and vague chocolate as well. It's really just well aged and balanced whisky, you'd never think blend otherwise. The peat is minimal.
Taste - The proof just doesn't hold up at all up front. Really nice creamy vanilla, white fudge. Really simple up front. Once you swallow the mouth is coated with rich OLD world whisky. There's a LOT of older HP elements coming out here. Good touches of heather honey and light peat. Rich old oaks.
Water doesn't seem to do much here. I went light on the pour and the water so there is that. Slight reduction in the oak and leather on the nose, mild push towards more vanilla. Similar changes to the taste.
Rich old whisky, muted with age, and not worth this price point for most geeks. This is a whisky for a macallan fan who believes in their pricing and is happy to pay it.
Still, it's good stuff. 3.0 and only because of the finish. At this weight and body it really should be closer to a 2.0.
430.0
USD
per
Bottle
Create Account
or
Sign in
to comment on this review
@PBMichiganWolverine yep, both showed up locally on the sameday. For some reason there was a pricing error on the grain so I had to buy it a few days later (they somehow priced the single bottle at the case price?).
@dhsilv2 curious to get your take on the Experimental. Is it in the US already?
FYI should have the Experimental Review up soon, I couldn't review it on the neck but I had 2 pours (one was healthy lol) last night. That one I suspect once I dig through the notes will both be much more long winded and score higher.
@PBMichiganWolverine the 2 was mostly caol ila and talisker. it was kinda boring to be frank. The no name 3 here was actually 10 bucks less than 2 and it's mostly laphroiag (16 years old), but the play they did with the other components (all but a drop of highland malt being 17-18 years old) was what made it what it was. IMHO, it's an absolute MUST buy whisky and the best thing under 300 i bought in 2021.
@ContemplativeFox actually , I think I have a sample , courtesy of @ctbeck11. I’m just slow as molasses in getting around to it
@PBMichiganWolverine I just picked up no name batch 3, so I can get a sample to you once I open it :)
@dhsilv2 i haven’t tried no name 3 yet——I admit, no name 1 was amazing. No name 2, that seemed priced higher than if I were to get an equivalent aged Laphroaig ( since I think the majority was laphroaig)
@PBMichiganWolverine well no name 3 was awesome! I passed on the canvas, at least so far. I will be getting that grain now that I got the price down from 820 to 150 lol. Would have taken one home today but they wanted a case price for the single bottle lol. So they're doing some hits and misses, but it's been feeling more miss. I really want to hear other's thoughts on this one and I think mike and I will review this over the weekend....a few more days open and maybe we'll find something else. It's rare I know I can get a review out early on a bottle like this, otherwise I'd wait a year as we often do. That said I poured some craigellachie after this, and it's so much more flavorful and richer. Not as refined or complex, but so what? It's honestly maybe better whisky minus the finish.
@dhsilv2 last few years, CB’s limited releases seem not worth the price.