LeeEvolved
Macallan Classic Cut (2018 Release)
Single Malt — Highlands, Scotland
Reviewed
January 5, 2019 (edited January 16, 2022)
Ah, it pains me to pen this review. If we go back to early 2017, when Macallan released the first Classic Cut- I was thrilled. I loved that malt so much that I spent an entire Saturday riding around central Virginia scooping up every bottle I could find on local ABC store shelves (this was mid-late summer, mind you, and most bottles had disappeared). I ended up with 8 bottles. I knew this would be a malt I’d love to return to periodically- so I needed lots of bottles.
So, flash forward to about a month ago and I see the new 2018 version sitting on shelves staring me down- same bright red box, same classic bottle design and label. Well, hell- I’m probably going to need 8 bottles of this year’s batch, too. Thankfully, the store only had 3- so, I’m only in for $270 + taxes at this point.
The problem- this year’s version is a complete abomination. I don’t understand what’s going on. This bottle is down about 7-8% in ABV- that can’t be it. I still can’t put my finger on what the major flaw is. I’m perplexed.
The 2018 version is yellow gold and makes medium drops and oily, quick-forming legs in the taster. It’s bottled at a robust 51.2% ABV. It’s still $89 here in Virginia.
The nose foreshadows the short comings: fake, popcorn butter greets you right out of the bottle. Some funky oak notes and weak sherry notes take turns offending your senses. I get that same diacetyl acid flavor leaking through no matter how long you let it sit and relax.
The palate is plenty juicy, almost mouthwatering. Sadly, that same buttered popcorn note dominates the sherry cask you’ve come to expect from Macallan. There’s some berries and Juicy Fruit gum notes mingling with what I can only describe as “wicker basket” wood notes. It turns very dry, very quickly. What happened?
The finish is warming, thanks to the near cask strength, but again is mostly buttered sherry lingering on and eventually turning ever so dry.
Now, I’ve given this bottle time and multiple tastings and none of these notes have really changed for the better (nor for the worse, thankfully). I have to hold this one up against its successor and it’s a pitiful follow-up. Hell, it’s not a very good Macallan, actually. Thankfully, I didn’t buy any more bottles and my buddy Paul unknowingly took a bottle off of my hands as his Christmas gift (I shipped to him prior to opening my bottle- so I didn’t push this stuff off on him lol). So, I’m left with one bottle I’ll gladly put in the closet towards a possible set (if Macallan continues this series). I hope they recognize this bottle’s faults and don’t allow them to return. As it is, this is a 2-2.25 bottle. Seek out the 2017 version and leave this one for the suckers, my friends. Cheers.
89.0
USD
per
Bottle
Create Account
or
Sign in
to comment on this review
@odysseusunbound - yeah, I have to say that I’ve only had 2-3 Macallan that made me sit up and take notice: Rare Cask, Fine Oak 21 and my first bottle of 18 year. Everything else has been a crap shoot. Although, the 2017 Classic Cut was surprisingly good and got better as I drank through the bottle. This 2018 is a tremendous disappointment. Cheers.
Nice review. I have to say, this comment: “Seek out the 2017 version and leave this one for the suckers, my friends.” is pretty much how I feel about every Macallan. I’ve tried a lot of them, and the only ones that tasted good were the Sienna and the Rare Cask. And those two are WAY overpriced here in Ontario. The Gold, 12 Sherry Oak, 12 Double Cask, Amber, 15 Fine Oak, and the Editions were all weak, sub-par whiskies as far as I’m concerned. For every Macallan on the market, there are at least 5 whiskies I like better at that price point. Vive la différence, I guess.
@LeeEvolved @Generously_Paul. Thank you both. Just saw this at Costco for $88 and read your reviews and passed! Appreciate your insights as always!
I read that each year’s release will have a different flavor profile, so you might expect them to vary as much as the Edition range. Personally, I have as little faith in the reliability of a Macallan NAS as I do in those of Highland Park. They are both owned by Edrington, whose strategy seems very much to be quantity over quality.
Wow. This is incredibly disappointing to hear.This one was on my list after reading nothing but great things about last year's vintage. I'll pass after reading this. Nice review!
@LeeEvolved Sorry to hear. Rather depressing that Mac seems to be slipping (per perception). I would only venture to guess that their cask selections have been suboptimal and the quality is now starting to expose itself. Wild ass guess here, however.
Couldn’t agree with you more. That fake butter and sulfur is a real turn off. It’s very drinkable for its ABV and the juicy fruity notes are nice, but I just can’t get over those funky notes that are ever present
@PBMichiganWolverine - yeah, 2017 bottles are already going for $165 plus premiums at Scotch Whisky Auctions. Almost double the original price.
@LeeEvolved the 2017 was pretty good. In retrospect, I should’ve bought more. But look at the bright side—-just how the original Classic Cut is now silly expensive, the 2017 will (hopefully) be a pricey collectible
@PBMichiganWolverine - no, this is the second release. The first official “Classic Cut” was from 2017. There have been 2 cask strength releases in the past: one NAS and one with a 10 year age statement. The Classic Cut was launched in response to fans asking for a new CS from Macallan (even though it’s not 100% cask strength- it’s pretty darn close IIRC)
@LeeEvolved - they’re got a big mortgage to pay. Impressive facility but the money has to come from somewhere.
@Soba45 - the Editions aren’t nearly as bad as the new Classic Cut. It seems like the Editions might be too ambitious for their respective price points IMO. Keeping those around $100 while having a large bottle count is probably tough and I think it shows. They aren’t bad- I think I’d just rather have the standard 12 or the Double Cask and save the money. Avoid the new Classic Cut entirely- I think it truly is a dud.
no.3 and 4 sorry
@LeeEvolved Ah I was just reading your Macallan no 2 and no 4 reviews so thought a pattern was developing recently
@Soba45 - I think they are just trying to capitalize on the success of the 2017 vintage and didn’t really have the quality stock on hand for the 2018 release. Macallan usually knocks it out of the park, even with NAS stuff. Hopefully it’s just this one dud.
Sounds like they are having a few quality control issues or just pumping out a lot of average stuff recently...hopefully not another Glendronach story!