🥃 Whisky Auctioneer

Tolerates water very well, even needs water aroma Lots of sherry sweetness, raisins, ignition chips, you certainly can't recognize a distillery The taste Not really complex, sherry sweetness, spark plugs, dark fruits, wood spice aftertaste Medium-long, sweet, spicy Really good for the price, but I wouldn't be willing to pay more than the issue price.

Solid stuff, absolutely drinkable!

Smell: it's like a winter Christmas whisky, chocolate, sherry, figs, overripe fruit, dark honey, old varnish, leather, wet vetch Taste: strong, dense, spicy, distinctive, but there is also freshness, ginger, overripe, distinctive sherry - if you dilute the whisky it will remain much fruitier For dripping it's a powerful sherry bomb for 84b. If one plays with this, it is a pleasant fruity sherry whisky 89b

The colour is golden/light brown. The whisky sticks to the glass quite well. For me the smell and taste of sulphur and burnt rubber is too dominant to get more out of it than below.

Ü Over-branded whisky that no longer has any of the (M) character. Like all these 100 proof bottlings, over-aged seasoned casks that are almost over. Why should (M) give such things away? Because they don't meet (M) standards. Yesterday I had a nice old 10 original (M) at cask strength in my glass. You can't even begin to compare them. Certainly not in terms of price. But then I'd rather get a dram of the original (M) at a trade fair than throw my money out the window on stuff like that, which is cheap but, in my opinion, undrinkable.

S 8 Very heavy handed Sherry, moderately sulphuric on the nose. But at this price no complain.

Extremely weak compared to No. 29!

Great whisky, beautiful sherry bomb

This is supposed to be the miraculous whisky under the pseudonym M...?! Please people, wake up from your dream! In the aroma, besides the weak sherry character, there is also something that reminds me of detergent. A delicate raisin aroma with old wood, leather and dark chocolate. In the taste, besides the woodiness, it is menthol, sourly fruity, slightly malty, but not as pronounced and miraculous as I expected.... For me, this is a very forgettable whisky...

Nice stuff. Raisins, honeydew melon. The M distillate comes through well. The youth is noticeable, but not disturbing.

A nice sherry aroma, there are no problems with the aroma, it is its strong point, there are certain notes in the taste that I didn't like. Overall, a controversial malt with its strengths and weaknesses. PS But how excited everyone was about this letter M ????????

modern, cask-driven as expected, youthful oloroso notes dominate, needs a lot of water to open up and show a little more of the distillate, ripe oranges, orange peel, fresh 'red' fruit, stewed tard berries and cherries ("rote Grütze"), ripe apples/apple compote, touch of menthol, bit of clay and chalk, sweet licorice candy, hint of sulphur/gunpowder and a note metal/copper. Decent, especially for the price, but perhaps a little too sweet and one-dimensional. I'm not sure I recognize Macallan here, the oranges might give that away, but I'm not a Macallan expert either. Will let it aerate for some time to see if there is more to discover. Or perhaps blend it with weaker, more spirit-driven expressions of Macallan...

Nose: Sherry, red berries Taste: Jam, sherry Finish: Oak, coffee

I am a big fan of the 100 proof series and this one is another example of how unbeatable they could be in the price/quality ratio. I am sure this is what a standard Mac 12 sherry oak could be unchillfiltered and at high strength. Absolutely beautiful stuff, highly recommended.

80/100 Schmackofatz

Nice but I had higher expectations. Its smooth and the alcohol is surprisingly well integrated. Lots of red fruits, some vanilla and tobacco. But the barrel is very dominant (seems like this is often the case with the SV100 series) and there are too many sulfur notes for me to really love it

When the next Macallan was announced so soon after the 100 Proof #25, I was already looking forward to the opportunity to compare, especially since all the key data - distillery, age, barrel storage, alcohol content and bottler - are basically the same; unfortunately I don't know whether it is even the same spirit. However, these twins are not identical, which is probably due to the different fathers... er, barrels; after a brief reference to my review of the 25 under ID 262435, let's get to what distinguishes the two: Both are a perfect fit for the Christmas season; however, #27 ranks a little higher in the flavor register, smells and tastes less "dark" or deep, and appears clearly sweeter on first contact. Or to put it this way: If #25 is spiced speculaas, then #27 is butter-almond speculaas: Creamy almond and marzipan reminiscences glow seductively from the glass; it's less dirty and seems fresher to me, but not necessarily younger, although a little thinner, but that may be due to the aforementioned "higher frequency range". Here, too, the alcohol is barely noticeable, although there is a "winey" character, but it is by no means blatantly biting in the nose. Milk chocolate, caramel and vanilla are joined by subtler, finer Christmas spices, a little ginger and honey; I think there is also a hint of sweetened mocha. And the 27, like the 25, also has a small portion of sulphur on the way; anything but unpleasant, although in the #25 it is a little more appropriate. In the medium-length finish, a fine woody spice is revealed in the last third, which finds a great counterpoint in the freshness of the lighter aromas, which also linger. I could not detect any fruit at any point; in my perception, the Speyside (M) #27 is clearly a dessert in the tension field between almond/marzipan, caramel/vanilla, lighter Christmas spices in milk chocolate and sweet mocha/cappuccino with very pleasant alcohol to drink. I really like this one, although it's perhaps not as close to me as #25, as I have more intense Christmas and especially gingerbread moments there. Nevertheless, in my opinion they are basically quite close to each other: Just as the Blair Athol #3 and the Glentauchers #8 were deeper and dirtier than the Athol #9 and the Tauchers #18, the same is true of these two from the 100 Proof series, both of which are more than worth their money!

Hello everyone, I agree with Torfschoenheit. I would give it 89 points, because the spicy alcohol and the marzipan/almond taste of this Macallan remind me more of the Macallan from the 80s. LG Imperator

One of the few bottles I actually regret purchasing. A complete sherry monster, dominated by the cask, with no balance or spirit character. Also very heavy on the struck-match sulfur notes. I'm a fan of Signatory Vintage, and give this an okay score purely on specs and craft presentation. I admit that the (M) pulled me in. In reality I think it would be impossible to tell the difference if it was any other relatively plain Speyside spirit underneath all that sherry cask influence. Each to their own however, some people enjoy the big sulfurous sherry drams and this is at least presented without chill filtration or colouring (not that it needs any after all that sherry) and at a good abv.