Macallan US Cask Strength bottling

So I did some digging around about the nature of the US c/s bottling released this year by Macallan -- and was quite surprised by the answers I got from the distillery. I was guessing that the c/s was comprised of a high ratio of first fill sherry casks but it seems that both it (and the
European, duty-free bottling) are *all* first fill casks.
And, according to the distillery, the US c/s is made up of older casks than the European variant. This part was hard for me to believe, but the distillery says that the age of the US bottling ranges between 10 and 15 years of age with no whisky less than 10 years used. Again, this seems odd not to include an age statement of 10 Year Old if that's the case but perhaps they want to leave the door open to drop in the occasional 9 year old cask if need be. When I mentioned that I found the US bottling to taste younger, anywhere from
7 to 8 at its youngest, I was offered a replacement bottle so that they could check mine for corkage.

Don't get me wrong -- I quite like the US c/s version, it's the best Macallan I've tasted from the distillery since I tried the 1985 vintage of the 18 Year Old. It seems that there was a real problem at the distillery between 1980-84 if the whiskies from this time are anything to go by. But from the younger, first fill expressions I've sampled, it seems that things are back on track at Macallan and the c/s is a nice change of pace from the overpriced marketing tripe
I've sampled, the Replica series a case in point. But older than the European bottling? I'm still surprised to hear this but have another European c/s on the way, so will do more comparison when it comes in.

I also find that the US cask Strength Macallan is the best thing to come out of the Macallan distillery for a long long time. However, I am disappointed to find out that the people at the MAcallan would try and make us believe that the US c/s version is actually older that the
10 year old European version (!). Why then, would they not advertise the purported greater or equal age on the label, since this omision could only hurt their sales? The answer is that the US version is not as old or older. It's that simple.
I think it's time we malt drinkers realize that it's not because the people at the MAcallan produce some of the very best stuff out there that they are in any way more honest or forthwright then say the people at Diaego who are wont to mislabel a vatted malt as a single, etc... The recent bottlings from Macallan are all examples of a distillery that tries to substitue honest information (ie, age and/or date of distilation and date of bottling) with commercial crap (the travel series); pseudo-historical misleading bottlings (the "replica series", etc, etc... As discussed before, today's Mac 18's are no longer true vintages, and we in the US are treated to a no age statement c/s whisky, which despite the verbiage (i.e., the BS) from the people at the Macallan is a step down from the European 10 year old c/s. (That being said, not being able to get the european version, today no age statement c/s is what I like to drink, I find it truer to the Distillery character than even the 18; perhaps because it is not dilluted with water.)

1980-84 if the whiskies from this time are anything to go by.

I remember reading a few years back that Macallan realized they had made a major mistake by buying in lean, foreign barley, instead of native Golden
Promise. Apparently the fat, hardy, local Golden Promise barley produces a much richer dram than the cheaper import. I have no idea whether it was specifically that time frame that was affected, though.

I knew I had heard somewhere that the US version was older than the euro version, and finally remembered where. It said so in the Malt Advocate; I recently stumbled upon than little blurb. If I was at home I could give you Volume, Number, and page.

But I trust your impression, and Douglas' fine review, that the US version *tastes* younger.

I suspect your idea that Macallan may want to leave themselves some flexibility for future vatting with whisky younger than
10 years is correct - and I think it's a wise plan - but I don't have any "inside" information on that.

It use to be said that Americans considered "12 Years Old" on the label to be the requirement for good scotch. I hope we're past that. You and I and all of us have had 12yo's that were boring, or bland, or spirity. And some much older than that that were the same. But perhaps management still regards a
10yo age statement as a liability rather than a selling point, at least in the US market.

Aberlour and Talisker have ten year olds that are well regarded, but most scotch buyers still buy blends, and I can't think of a 10yo blended off the top of my head; I could name several 12yo's.