Not what it seems at first
Well... I finally got my paws on the Macallan 1841 Replica...
The Macallan Replicas were an attempt to recreate long-lost whiskies - although I'd worry a bit about the effects of time. As such, a lot of work went into them, not least the packaging, and they've commanded a pretty premium price.
Curiously, despite the limited-ness, the 1841 Replica is worth today pretty much what it was worth a few years back when it was released, unless you buy on eBay, in which case this is a £230 bottle of whisky. Originally, you were looking at £90 a bottle - which is a bit steep, but given the costs of acquiring the original bottles and finding the barrels to achieve the blend (not to mention the rather nice bottle), not to mention the cost of acquiring the original 1841 bottle and... er...
There's a problem here.
You see, some of the original nineteenth century bottles weren't what they seemed to be: they weren't actually hundred-plus-year-old Macallans. They were something created to be sold at auction for a great sum - which indeed they were.
So this, quite possibly, is a replica of a fake.
It's a thoroughly bizarre thing in that it certainly is pretending to be something, but the something that it's pretending to be might also be pretending to be something it's certainly not. Confused yet?
Moving onwards, I feel obliged at this point to expose my general thoughts about the modern Macallan: I find it clinical - very refined, yet entirely lacking in character. While an Islay appears in a kilt and smacks you round the head, the Macallan is at best an anonymous Edinburgh banker and in reality is a note lost on the wind.
Technically, it's excellent, but it's entirely lacking in soul; and with no soul, it's not memorable.
The 1841 replica is a bit different - and proves at least that there are some casks with a sort-of character lurking in the depths of the distillery.
The nose has promise, although it ultimately doesn't deliver a huge amount. It doesn't have any vices, but all the same there's a slight lack of final delivery beyond the fudgy beginnings.
On the palate, it's not bad at all: the Macallan always has a hint of stand-offishness and it's not missing this time around. Yet it's more remarkable for what it's not than for what it is: it isn't cloying, it isn't smokey and it isn't challenging. It's almost sweet and almost slightly oily, even slightly dieseley - but it's not. What it is is light, with almost the slightest hint of orange blossom or something like that that. Yet - and this is the clincher - it's almost memorable, but it isn't.
The finish? It's a Macallan, so it's not going to shin its way up your throat and strange your epiglottis. Yes, it's slightly dry, slightly acid and slightly floral - but that's about it.
Overall, this isn't a bad whisky. It almost certainly contains a lot of young spirit, to match the relatively young version of Macallan than existed in 1841, only 17 years after the distillery opened. Perhaps it's a little rougher round the edges than a current Macallan but, depending on your point of view, that might not be a bad thing.
Is it worth going out and seeking a bottle? Unfortunately not.
But is it worth ensuring you try it if you happen across it? Certainly yes: it's a curiosity which is nevertheless an interesting dram, even if it's not the best you'll ever taste.
No comments:
Post a Comment