Macallan 12yr

My birthday is today and my wife's sister bought me a bottle of Macallan 12 yr. One of my favorites. Has anyone ever tried the 18 and thought the 12 was as good?

I ask because my wife bought me the 18 yr on our anniversaries but I didn't notice much of a difference between the two. Although I didn't same at the same time.
I told her next time, just get the 12 and save the difference to treat yourself to a top notch mani-pedi.

Very nice. Enjoy it!

I like both, but don't see a big enough difference to warrant the price difference.

Spending the difference on a mani pedi sounds like a win win!

I find the 12 year sherry to be a bit coarser than the 18 sherry. It's richer, fuller and less refined. They are both splendid! Kind of like the difference between a ford 5.0 and one with a baby cam. Both have a very nice throaty growl or in this case rich sherry sweetness but the 18 hides it a bit more. A touch of water will bring out some interesting notes. Cool Room temperature or slightly cool is best. Certainly not icy or cold. As with most things cost is subjective but the 18 is quite nice. The 18 cask strength also nice.

If you can find a bottle of the 10 year oak I highly recommend it. (Not to be confused with the 12 year oak which seems sub par).

I got a bottle of the 12 for my birthday in October and the 18 for Christmas. I am afraid to say my palate is not sophisticated enough to appreciate the differences. I am accepting the challenge, though!

The 12 is all I need.
Make sure you get the Sherry Oak and not the Fine Oak.
Wonderful nose, perfect balance, with a subtle smoke finish.
One of my favorites.

Yep I've got the sherry. Had a nice drink a few minutes ago and about to hit the hay.

I've always been a fan of the 12 year. A couple years ago at a restaurant I had a flight of 1/2 oz pours of each of the 12, 18, &25 year mccallans. There were small but noticeable differences between them. All were excellent but I preferred the 12. Later my in laws got me a bottle of mccallans special reserve. Very good as well but I still liked the 12 better. My wife agreed

FL shaver said:

I got a bottle of the 12 for my birthday in October and the 18 for Christmas. I am afraid to say my palate is not sophisticated enough to appreciate the differences. I am accepting the challenge, though!

Click to expand...

I hope you can bear up under the pressure.

Curt

czbeme said:

I hope you can bear up under the pressure.

Curt

Click to expand...

Heading for the 18 tonight....

I've not tried Macallan, but I've come across a few whiskys where I like the younger spirit as much or better than the older. Older whisky isn't more expensive because it's inherently better, it's because there's less of it in the barrel owing to evaporation over the years. Whether or not you prefer the older whisky is entirely down to preference.

chris.hale said:

I've not tried Macallan, but I've come across a few whiskys where I like the younger spirit as much or better than the older. Older whisky isn't more expensive because it's inherently better, it's because there's less of it in the barrel owing to evaporation over the years. Whether or not you prefer the older whisky is entirely down to preference.

Click to expand...

While evaporation may play a role in cost, I would suggest the time value of money, i.e. lost interest or investment opportunity for the value of the whisky for 10-20 years is also a major driver in the cost. An average compounded 7% return on investment would double the original value in 10 years. An original investment (say the cost of a liter of good whisky at year 1) of $20 would increase to $40 at year 11 and to $80 at year 21.

Also, high quality (real or only perceived) can command a premium price. So with a 15 yr. single malt the buyer might expect a higher quality than an 8 yr. product and be willing to pay a premium above the example of the time value of money above, even if there is only marginal real difference in quality.

Finally, brand reputation certainly comes into play, especially with "premium" brands. Many of us would quickly pay a premium, even above the release price, for certain premium brands. This is certainly true with many products including whisky. So by limiting availability
the producer can generate higher unit value. How many times does simply labeling an already premium brand with "Limited Edition" generate an even greater price point?

That's possibly a driving factor too. At the Glenfiddich distillery they have three casks where they've replaced the end with a glass plate, the new cask is pretty much full, the 10 year has dropped substantially, and the 18 is under half full. I was suprised at just how much spirit is lost over the years.

chris.hale said:

That's possibly a driving factor too. At the Glenfiddich distillery they have three casks where they've replaced the end with a glass plate, the new cask is pretty much full, the 10 year has dropped substantially, and the 18 is under half full. I was suprised at just how much spirit is lost over the years.

Click to expand...

Chris, you are correct that evaporation is at work here. Some estimates that scotch whisky will lose 2% per year on average but the actual value will vary depending on storage conditions. I understand that this loss can be much greater with Kentucky whiskey since the temperature and humidity is much different than Scotland. It is unfortunate but necessary to store in oak barrels to acquire the various extracts from the wood that contribute to the flavor. True Kentucky bourbon must be aged in new oak barrels which can also be more problematic with evaporation. Scotch is usually aged in used bourbon barrels and some believe that this reduces the evaporation rate to some degree. Certainly many factors contribute to the complex process and art required to create these seemingly simple products.

chris.hale said:

I've not tried Macallan, but I've come across a few whiskys where I like the younger spirit as much or better than the older. Older whisky isn't more expensive because it's inherently better, it's because there's less of it in the barrel owing to evaporation over the years. Whether or not you prefer the older whisky is entirely down to preference.

Click to expand...

CUSE69 said:

While evaporation may play a role in cost, I would suggest the time value of money, i.e. lost interest or investment opportunity for the value of the whisky for 10-20 years is also a major driver in the cost. An average compounded 7% return on investment would double the original value in 10 years. An original investment (say the cost of a liter of good whisky at year 1) of $20 would increase to $40 at year 11 and to $80 at year 21.

Also, high quality (real or only perceived) can command a premium price. So with a 15 yr. single malt the buyer might expect a higher quality than an 8 yr. product and be willing to pay a premium above the example of the time value of money above, even if there is only marginal real difference in quality.

Finally, brand reputation certainly comes into play, especially with "premium" brands. Many of us would quickly pay a premium, even above the release price, for certain premium brands. This is certainly true with many products including whisky. So by limiting availability
the producer can generate higher unit value. How many times does simply labeling an already premium brand with "Limited Edition" generate an even greater price point?

Click to expand...

I believe that you are both correct. When holding any inventory, there is a holding cost. This is what CUSE69 is getting at. There are various components of this cost, but ultimately, it costs money to hold onto inventory and care for it as needed while holding it.

There is also the loss factor that Chris about which Chris is talking. This results in having fewer gallons of product over which to spread the accumulated costs of manufacture, holding and related overhead.

While both of these factors are a component of the higher cost of older whisky, I also believe that there is a perception in the market that the longer the whisky touches the oak, the better it becomes. As long as the market perceives a 18 yo bottle to be a superior product to a 15yo bottle which is also superior to a 12 yo bottle, etc., there will be a premium paid in the form of a higher margin for the older whisky.

In the end, pricing is determined by what the market will bear. The decision to make and hold inventory is driven by the ROI demanded by the investors. If the distiller can get a better ROI selling older whisky, they will do so, but they also need to capture the lesser priced market to drive customers to the higher end stuff later when they can afford it. If the ROI is not sufficient selling the older stuff, the distiller will migrate toward younger product, but may or may not keep a certain percentage of product until an older age so they can be perceived as playing in that market, which may drive younger customers to their younger product until they can afford the older stuff.

I agree with Cuse69 and Shutterbug too, I'd only considered one part of the cost when of course other things come into play and I'm sure marketing is part of it. Haig Club for example is priced at £45, I've not tried it myself but the reviews I've read are not favourable and definitely suggest that the money is going on the fancy bottle and paying David Beckham to advertise it.

Storage conditions definitely have an effect on the whisky, hence the lovely sea notes in the likes of Talisker and Old Pulteney. Whisky truly is wonderful stuff!

I've had their 12, 18, and 25 year scotches over the years. I was lucky enough to work on the 25yr bottle with 3 other people and, more or less, make it go away. The GM at the restaurant that got me through college got it as a gift from his ex-inlaws and there was no love left for those people. He wanted to celebrate the break from his ex with her parents' money and I got to partake. A case of the 18yr was donated to the deployed location that housed me for a few months. The base bar got $5/pour and I just couldn't refuse that price. The 12 year doesn't have a story.

I'd rank them 25, 12, 18. There's no way I'd spend my money on the 18 when there are other decent scotches available. It wasn't bad by any means, but it lacked character. It was almost smooth to a fault...all wood and no spirit. I've had a few other 18yr offerings that are MUCH less expensive than Macallan's that are much better drinks. The 25 year was wonderfully complex with just enough heat to know you're working on a scotch. The 18 was heading that way, but didn't develop the character to replace the young spirit flavors that are in the 12, but faded over the years. Don't read this as a bad review, just as a 'not good enough' review. Macallan 18 is still a damned fine whiskey, but there are better drams for the price and at that price. I havn't had their 15 year but I'd be interested to try it and see if it has the woody notes that are good in the 18 plus the younger spirit notes from the 12yr. That would keep things more interesting.

Happy birthday. Very nice gift. Don't "over-enjoy" it!

In terms of pricing old vs young whisky, I think most of the points have been covered:

1. longer barrel storage means more cost to store & thus to produce, and longer to get a return on investment.
2. the Angels' Share evaporation means profits are lost into the ether, and need to be made up with higher sale prices.
3. customers tend to perceive "older = better" so producers can charge more ... and of course do.
4. older whisky tends to be marketed with more "prestige", and to be offered by "higher end" brands.

I'll toss another into the mix:

There's less of it about. Put a platefull of freshly made cookies on the kitchen table in a house full of teenagers, and see how many cookies are still there tomorrow. Ditto for casks of perfectly saleable scotch in the warehouse of a scotch producer ... most of the scotch gets sold young, because ... why wait? I can have a cookie today!!

Toss onto that the fact that not every whiskey can actually make it to old age in the barrel and still taste great ... many can go awry in the cask as they get on in years ... so unless a particular cask shows promise as a long-term ageing gem, it'll get bottled early before it starts to lose it's lustre. So, for the producer, ageing a cask from 12 to 20 years is a risky proposition not only because of the Angels' Share, but because the cask may not turn out that good.






My bottom line:

A young scotch and an old scotch are, fundamentally, different (rather than one being inherently better.) They can be good, bad or indifferent examples of their different natures, but they will be different experiences ... and the older one inherently more expensive, regardless of "merit" for the price: if nothing else, the means of production makes that necessary.

Life's too short to drink bad scotch.