I have a bottle of Ed 1 unopened, drank a bottle of 2 for $100 and that was great. Ed 3 was a joke, pairing with a master perfumer. Ed 4 was ok.. Ed 5 & 6 I never had. I wish I could buy more Ed 2 for $100, but I'm not paying $300-400.. Great review.
To be honest, it's been a while since I had this whisky, but for what it's worth here's what I thought about it back in the day: ua-cam.com/video/l6d4d9ocn_w/v-deo.html
Macallan edition 2 was the first expensive bottle I bought for $120. Soon followed by Lonmorn 16, Balblair 99 and Old Pulteney 21. The Mac 2 was good but wish I had kept it to flip with what they sell for now. Cheers guy's
Many years ago there was an OB Macallan cask strength bottle available at retail. It was a red label for USA release and bottled at 58.6%. They were really good, easy to get, and I remember them being reasonably priced. I think I even have one or two left. You guys ever try that one??
I also cannot stand the Edition 3. I liked the edition 2 and bought a backup for $135 Cad and recently traded it for a 2021 Thomas H Handy which works for me as I was never going to open the Ed 2 anyway. The Edition 4 is also a nice pour. I stopped buying them after that one for some reason.
I still have an almost full bottle of this. When I bought it, I thought it was a great bottle for a reasonable price. Auction prices on 1-4 are going crazy at the moment, especially edition 1.
Enjoyed a sample of Ed # 4 but never bought a bottle. Had a sample of their latest series, focusing on cacao / chocolate and at 160 a bottle won't buy. The 2017 Classic Cut is still my favorite bottle from Macallan.
@@topshelfwhisky Mike, I should have said of the bottles I've bought. We did a pour of their 18 (my wife ordered) and very nice. But at 300 per bottle, I passed and didn't buy.
The Macallan Editions were all decent, but I never really got in to any of them. Fine whiskies, just nothing that really stood out to me. Only ever bought a No. 2 and wasn't really loving it after half the bottle was gone. I'm just not interested in anything Macallan has done in the last few years or is currently doing, although a few of the classic cuts have been nice.
I liked the classic cut 2017 but they just kept getting worse and worse to the point I just was done. This edition 4 was really the only edition I thought was worth buying, never had 6.
I surprisingly enjoyed #6, it appeared to be pretty vibrant and spicy with layers of chocolate going hand in hand with marzipan. #3 was a total disaster.
you're the second here to sing the praises of 6. Oh well, those are long gone as even with 300k bottles of this made, people collect them like no other.
@@shaunwitzler5482 wow where do you live? These were just on shelves collecting dust for years at MSRP. Macallan doesn't really sell that well here or at least it didn't until the last year with supply chain issues it seems everything is flying off shelves.
@@topshelfdustin3060 Los Angeles. The #1, 2, and 3 are even more! On a side note, I just found a Balvenie limited release 17 sherry oak 2007, for only $199. Have you ever had it? I'm seeing it go for 800-1K online so I think this liquor store doesn't know what they have haha. Curious because I know you're big balvenie guys.
@@shaunwitzler5482 ah, well if you're talking about CURRENTLY having those bottles then I guess that makes sense. This was bought a while back, macallan just isn't a huge brand outside of the coasts in the US. I've heard of that 17 but I don't know much about it. For 200 worth a gamble. First fill and 43%, couldn't be a terrible one to pickup.
Macallan Edition 4 was good and I liked it but edition 6 and classic cut 2018 made me stopped buying Macallan completely. And for god’s sake don’t compare Macallan to Rolex, Rolex still makes the best sport watches in the world and never bring down the quality like Macallan
Rolex doesn't even make sports watches anymore! All the polished BS and ceramic bezels! That's not sports! And as a watch, give me a break...don't even have display backs with finished movements? Come on! I've come close to buying 3 rolexes and everytime I went with a better watch. Two Grand Seikos' and yes....a Tudor! Their own "jr" brand was just better! Sorry if anything gets me going more than whisky it's watches! :) That said to be fair, after decades of building their brand on crap, Rolex actually has been improving their quality of movements and bracelets. Still too cheap to do a display back and finish a movement, but whatever...
@@topshelfdustin3060 I’m a huge fan of Grand Seiko and own one, their attention to detail and amazing movements are just in whole different level. Yet, As a Submariner Date owner, I understand that transparent case back is something everyone wants however it’s against philosophy of Rolex. Their philosophy is pure functionality and they’ve been successful at it. Lastly I don’t understand what’s wrong with ceramic bezel, they look very shiny and completely scratch resistant (Omega and others started using them too) you’re the first person that I see don’t like them.
@@Houman7 well if the goal is a sports watch (and really rolex built the brand as being a tool watch), I get no display back. Function. But if function is the goal, a ceramic bezel will shatter on contact. You can't be about the solid caseback and still support the ceramic bezel if you're about function. Rolex built their name on being the watch you wear when you're doing car work, building a fence, going to the gym. And today they're doing this weird "dressy" tool watch thing, it to me is macallan building their name on age statements and then releasing NAS whisky. Tudor has become the real rolex in terms of heritage. Can't hate on their new movements and their bracelets though. Great build quality. Their prices imo are macallan absurd though and the dial work is seriously lacking in that price range for me. Combine with how they "finish" the inner lugs (I'm a big fan of straps)...another throw back to being a tool watch, not a fancy watch.
I have a bottle of Ed 1 unopened, drank a bottle of 2 for $100 and that was great. Ed 3 was a joke, pairing with a master perfumer. Ed 4 was ok.. Ed 5 & 6 I never had. I wish I could buy more Ed 2 for $100, but I'm not paying $300-400.. Great review.
This was probably my favorite of the bunch. I never tried #1. Nailed the review fellas!
Maybe E#1 was better but it's close.
We were surprised that we liked this as much as we did in the blind tasting. $98 at Total Wine, CA Jan 2019.
Same. I gave Dustin some pushback regarding this review because of low expectations. Nice little surprise.
To be honest, it's been a while since I had this whisky, but for what it's worth here's what I thought about it back in the day:
ua-cam.com/video/l6d4d9ocn_w/v-deo.html
Macallan edition 2 was the first expensive bottle I bought for $120. Soon followed by Lonmorn 16, Balblair 99 and Old Pulteney 21. The Mac 2 was good but wish I had kept it to flip with what they sell for now. Cheers guy's
I remember walking past cases of Edition #1 for two years
Many years ago there was an OB Macallan cask strength bottle available at retail. It was a red label for USA release and bottled at 58.6%. They were really good, easy to get, and I remember them being reasonably priced. I think I even have one or two left. You guys ever try that one??
No, but I do remember the old cask strength 10 well... $88 and always available
I recall an NAS macallan cask strength at one point in a tasting...
I went back and bought a 2nd bottle too
I also cannot stand the Edition 3. I liked the edition 2 and bought a backup for $135 Cad and recently traded it for a 2021 Thomas H Handy which works for me as I was never going to open the Ed 2 anyway. The Edition 4 is also a nice pour. I stopped buying them after that one for some reason.
We'll have edition 5 coming up, I don't think we're going to disagree with your decision.
I still have an almost full bottle of this. When I bought it, I thought it was a great bottle for a reasonable price. Auction prices on 1-4 are going crazy at the moment, especially edition 1.
Enjoyed a sample of Ed # 4 but never bought a bottle. Had a sample of their latest series, focusing on cacao / chocolate and at 160 a bottle won't buy. The 2017 Classic Cut is still my favorite bottle from Macallan.
Never tried the 18? it's overpriced for sure but if you can find a purple box I would buy one.
@@topshelfwhisky Mike, I should have said of the bottles I've bought. We did a pour of their 18 (my wife ordered) and very nice. But at 300 per bottle, I passed and didn't buy.
The Macallan Editions were all decent, but I never really got in to any of them. Fine whiskies, just nothing that really stood out to me. Only ever bought a No. 2 and wasn't really loving it after half the bottle was gone. I'm just not interested in anything Macallan has done in the last few years or is currently doing, although a few of the classic cuts have been nice.
I liked the classic cut 2017 but they just kept getting worse and worse to the point I just was done. This edition 4 was really the only edition I thought was worth buying, never had 6.
Only tried the 2,3,5,6 and liked nr: 6 the best
Never had the 6, after 5 and with their prices going up I was done.
@@topshelfdustin3060 2-6 was almost the same price here in Sweden 100-110usd
Nr:1 wasn’t released here😢and now it is 1000usd🤯
@@primewhisky buy every bottle you can for 1k, they're going for 3-4k at auction! They went from about 100 to 150 here.
missing the best two
@@topshelfwhisky i have been trying to test in a bar or so but no one has it😢
Shoot. Looking back I should have bought this one. I bought Batch 3 and hated it.
Three and five were both particularly awful even for the series.
I surprisingly enjoyed #6, it appeared to be pretty vibrant and spicy with layers of chocolate going hand in hand with marzipan. #3 was a total disaster.
you're the second here to sing the praises of 6. Oh well, those are long gone as even with 300k bottles of this made, people collect them like no other.
You got this for only $100?!?!?!
yeah that was the full MSRP on it. These sat around a few years given they made 300,000 bottles of it. What was it in your market?
@@topshelfdustin3060 Cheapest one I could find at my local rip-off shop was $499 haha.
@@shaunwitzler5482 wow where do you live? These were just on shelves collecting dust for years at MSRP. Macallan doesn't really sell that well here or at least it didn't until the last year with supply chain issues it seems everything is flying off shelves.
@@topshelfdustin3060 Los Angeles. The #1, 2, and 3 are even more! On a side note, I just found a Balvenie limited release 17 sherry oak 2007, for only $199. Have you ever had it? I'm seeing it go for 800-1K online so I think this liquor store doesn't know what they have haha. Curious because I know you're big balvenie guys.
@@shaunwitzler5482 ah, well if you're talking about CURRENTLY having those bottles then I guess that makes sense. This was bought a while back, macallan just isn't a huge brand outside of the coasts in the US.
I've heard of that 17 but I don't know much about it. For 200 worth a gamble. First fill and 43%, couldn't be a terrible one to pickup.
Macallan Edition 4 was good and I liked it but edition 6 and classic cut 2018 made me stopped buying Macallan completely. And for god’s sake don’t compare Macallan to Rolex, Rolex still makes the best sport watches in the world and never bring down the quality like Macallan
Rolex doesn't even make sports watches anymore! All the polished BS and ceramic bezels! That's not sports! And as a watch, give me a break...don't even have display backs with finished movements? Come on! I've come close to buying 3 rolexes and everytime I went with a better watch. Two Grand Seikos' and yes....a Tudor! Their own "jr" brand was just better! Sorry if anything gets me going more than whisky it's watches! :)
That said to be fair, after decades of building their brand on crap, Rolex actually has been improving their quality of movements and bracelets. Still too cheap to do a display back and finish a movement, but whatever...
@@topshelfdustin3060 I’m a huge fan of Grand Seiko and own one, their attention to detail and amazing movements are just in whole different level. Yet, As a Submariner Date owner, I understand that transparent case back is something everyone wants however it’s against philosophy of Rolex. Their philosophy is pure functionality and they’ve been successful at it. Lastly I don’t understand what’s wrong with ceramic bezel, they look very shiny and completely scratch resistant (Omega and others started using them too) you’re the first person that I see don’t like them.
@@Houman7 well if the goal is a sports watch (and really rolex built the brand as being a tool watch), I get no display back. Function. But if function is the goal, a ceramic bezel will shatter on contact. You can't be about the solid caseback and still support the ceramic bezel if you're about function.
Rolex built their name on being the watch you wear when you're doing car work, building a fence, going to the gym. And today they're doing this weird "dressy" tool watch thing, it to me is macallan building their name on age statements and then releasing NAS whisky. Tudor has become the real rolex in terms of heritage.
Can't hate on their new movements and their bracelets though. Great build quality. Their prices imo are macallan absurd though and the dial work is seriously lacking in that price range for me. Combine with how they "finish" the inner lugs (I'm a big fan of straps)...another throw back to being a tool watch, not a fancy watch.