Keith Töpfer

I’m amazed that the 17 yr. has been considered so highly by many respondents. It’s like pointing to the Cadillac Cimarron as the highlight of the modern Cadillac line. It is simply out of character, too stripped down and simply unrepresentative. Similary, the fine oak 17 yr. is watery and thin, and reveals an odd mix of fish and flowers–simply not in any way similar or in line with the Macallan character profile. Maybe a Highland Park 12 can be considered to effectively balance the sherry, floral, seaside, and peat in a beautiful way, but this 17 yr. light-weight falls well short of that. Maybe I got a bad bottle.

I have never seen the 18 yr. fine oak offerings in Boston, so I can’t comment on that.

The FO 18 is good, very good, but not close to the 18 sherried. When I drink a Macallan it is because I am in the mood for the Macallan sherried flavor. The bourbon casking gives this FO breed a bit of an edge that is not in the all-sherry cask version.

It is very good overall, but I will refill with the more expensive sherried Mac 18

I opened that FO 17 a bit ago and I like it very much. Considering how light and straightforwardly enjoyable it is, its profile is surprisingly deep and nuanced. I was also caught off gaurd by how much its character changed with the addition of a little water– a lot, almost like a cask strength whisky, but it’s only 43 apv.

So I think it’s very good. What about the price? Well, I bought it for 72.99 and I have no regrets. If I was going to get it again, I wouldn’t pay more than 80, though. The usual price is a bit of a rip off, which is typical of Macallan.

The 25 is a cracker..

I think Macallan have ‘jazzed’ up the line in the last few years. It would be interesting to do a head to head with the launch bottlings vs. the current bottlings.

Just my 2cc.

After a few years of sleeping in a dark corner, I’m still waiting for the right moment to awake my 1979 Grand Reserva I found at a rinky dinky liquor store here in Central Texas at the original retail price of $150. Should have seen the smile on my face, from ear to ear.

My feeling is that even those who do like the Fine Oak like will never be blown away by it because it is not designed to be that kind of whisky. It’s not a Supernova or Octomore. It’s a nicely balanced, lighter, more subtle expression of Macallan designed to please, not to “wow”.

(A slight diversion here: when the line first came out in the U.S., it included the 17 yr. old. An 18 yr. old was released outside the U.S. Well, the brand manager at the time informed me that the 17 yr. old release was actually an 18 year old. They didn’t want to confuse people by calling it an 18 yr. old because there was already an 18 yr. old sherry version being sold in the U.S.)

I’ve tasted the entire Macallan Fine Oak range 8 yo up to 30 yo), and I find the range embodies expensive mediocrity – mid 70 point to low 80 point whisky at best. The kindest thing I can say about the range, including the 17 yo (which is the best of the bunch) is that they are for the most part inoffensive – perhaps approaching nice. I can’t imagine buying any of them and if they were the only single malts available – I’d switch to bourbon and beer. I’ll concede that perhaps this is a style I can’t appreciate. The recent Highland Park Capella bottle about four years ago was quite similar to the Fine Oak profile. And for clarification, I’m the anti-MJ (rest in peace Michael, but you never met an OB Macallan you didn’t like). The pre-1979 vintage Macallan 18 yo bottlings on the other hand ….. now those are magnificent whiskies. The 1979 Macallan Gran Reserva – that is great, great whisky. And there certainly are bourbon cask Macallans that are excellent, the Signatory 5/75-5/95 bottled at 43% shows the best side of un-sherried Macallan. Park Avenue sold an interesting bourbon cask Macallan around 2003-2004. John, I tend to agree with your whisky enthusiast friend regarding the Fine Oaks.