🥃 Whisky Auctioneer

I actually read "sulfur (increases complexity)" here... no, that's a false note. But let's leave it at that and stay peaceful.

I think this whole series is terrible and discredits the name of single malt; all these releases are only good for cocktails at best.

For the price 50€ we have a very good whisky for a daily dram!

Big business, for 55 € I bought this SV (Macallan). Awesome

Decent sherry whisky

Both in the smell and the taste the sulphur is noticeable to me and since I am not a fan of that... I can't pick out a Macallan (probably partly because of this), not a fan of this dram.

Very good integrated alcohol, quite creamy spirit and a little spicy.

(Blind tasting) Dark amber color. Oily structure.

At first this "secret" whisky seemed a bit rough and spirity. But one week later it fully opened up and then I understood why it is regarded as one of the best in 100 proff series. It gets even better with water ands draws the natural desire for another pour. I believe that it is most likely a long finish in the good quality sherry casks, rather than full-time maturation. All in all a very tasty single malt with exceptionally good price-quality ratio at the moment of release.

Speyside (M) 2011 Signatory Vintage 100 proof edition #29 *Age statement: 13 years old, including a vintage. *Alcohol percentage at least 46%: yes, 57.1%. *Amount of filtration: stated on the front of the bottle as non-chillfiltered. *Use of caramel coloring {E150a}: stated on the front of the bottle as uncolored. (4 out of 4, regarding craft/integrity presentation and communication). Without water Nose/olfaction: cleaning supplies, grapes, it feels quite closed; needs some water to open up. Palate/gustation: syrup, sweet carrots, some bitterness that I associate with rubber. Finish/coda: black coffee with some kind of fruit syrup. With water Nose/olfaction: improves the nose, giving a more cleanish vibe and removing the extremities of the undiluted liquid. Palate/gustation: more malt, and a more leveled increase in intensity towards the finish. Finish/coda: a pinkish flavor becomes apparent, much less intense than the glass that is without water. It is amazing to drink a Macallan that is affordable, and it is even better to say that I am thoroughly enjoying this session. While not the most complex within the Signatory Vintage 100 proof line-up, it is one of the most fun ones. When placed in a flight with his brethren from the dunnage of Pitlochry a while back it was clearly one of the best, but during a meditative session it fails to recapture that magic. It is very loud and perhaps that is why it reigns during flights, but impresses a tad less when it is judged lonesome.

It's heady, indulgent, yet balanced. Plum tart, apple strudel, cinnamon and brown sugar, whipped cream, a light autumnal freshness, orchard fruits, syrupy smoke, compote, pumpkin soup, candied peppers, blackberries and blueberries, wild strawberries. Hot chocolate, gingerbread filled with walnuts. On the palate, full of caramel, almost acidic, chocolate chips, mirabelle plums, deep, gently bitter wood, exotic spices, cinnamon, saffron, curry, nutmeg. A long and powerful finish, but not too much, baked apples, cola, licorice, liquid caramel, oak bark, warm chestnuts. The flaws I found in 100 Proof #25 are absolutely not present here; it is very well balanced, everything is in its place, and it offers us a very good product. https://ilikesky2020.blogspot.com/2025/01/speyside-m-2011-100-proof-edition-29-13.html

Dear friends in malt, all good things come in threes: How I was looking forward to the opportunity to compare #25, #27 and #29 of the 100 Proof series because of the small but crucial commonality called (M)! And now the time had finally come: Today the Speyside (M) #29 was first served on its own, then in the context of the current 12 Sherry Oak, before finally competing on equal terms with its bottling siblings; what a feast for the senses! And, what's more, it's an incredibly significant moment for the whisky market, as a third Macallan bottling in such a short space of time clearly represents a gauntlet to resellers and secondary market speculators, and carries the clear message "It keeps coming back, so don't buy expensive second-hand!" Thank you, Signatory, that's great for us consumers and annoys all the (in the Douglas Adams sense) Ark B people, who we need like crazy! But let's get to the distillate itself: If the age is identical to the two previous bottlings, this one was made from a single 1st Fill Oloroso cask; both #25 and #27 have been blessed with an additional 2nd Fill Oloroso cask. And this is actually quite clear to smell as well as to taste: the frequency spectrum of the aromas is much more limited here, but all the deeper! Which in turn means that the 29er, in contrast to its two predecessors, ROARS VERY LOUDLY!!! Now, as we all know, volume should never be confused with the content of a message, and in this very sense, despite the bluster, I miss the complexity of the other two colleagues from the very beginning, especially that of #25, who is closer to me. Yes, it is more powerful, louder, more intense, but it is not more complex, not more playful, not more balanced (more like with all EQ faders up!) and not more varied. A good example is the sulphur content present in all three bottlings, but here it is more distinct and clearly perceptible. It is also reflected in the age: If I had considered the #25 to be significantly older and placed the #27 at 12-14 years, the #29 seems younger to me because of the initial butteriness in the nose. The alcohol is already very well integrated here, but clearly more noticeable than in its two colleagues. In contrast, #29 is darker, deeper, more profound, but also coarser and rougher; it lacks the beautiful, subtle, round sweetness of both of its predecessors, as well as fine gingerbread, nut (#25) or almond (#27) aromas, and in exchange it has liquorice, malt candy and cola. At no point did I notice any really clearly pronounced fruit; that is reserved for the Macallan 12 Sherry Oak, for example. There is plenty of dark chocolate, cocoa powder, slightly burnt, unsweetened caramel and wood spice; in the background, the Speyside (M) leaves minimal room for raisins and perhaps Jaffa biscuits, which also hints at some orange zest. An almost populist dram that scores points on the surface, but lacks some of what its predecessors had to offer, namely subtle complexity, finesse and elegance; in contrast, I find the finish to be a bit bitter, but in absolute terms that is no reason to complain. I don't want to offend anyone who has different tastes: these are just associations, not absolute statements. ;o) Conclusion: This is a very heavy, very tasty dram, which, in contrast to its predecessors, is less subtle and complex, but "lound'n'proud" and cuts a notch into the wood that sits deeper in both senses of the word; the Hagrid of the 100 proof Macallans, so to speak. It's strange that I prefer him to the 27 because of his strength of character and yet don't rate him higher, but that's just how it feels. And hand on heart, who doesn't like Hagrid, even if others may understand complex issues better than him...? ;o)

The aromas of the distillate (lychee, fresh grapes) are pushed too far into the background by the barrel and sulphur.

such an integrity bottling from SV, way better than #27.

86.50 Dried and dark fruits, sweet citrus, lots of prunes, raisins, caramel, nuts, chocolate, coffee, a touch of wet wood, a bit of wooden tartness, and after a while, brown burnt sugar and more sweet red fruits, liqueur. Unfortunately, spices, pepper, cinnamon, nutmeg, and the alcohol itself are distracting. A hint of sulfur, similar to that of Bru wines.

beautiful whisky with a strong sherry influence Sherry bomb! Balanced, very well made Macallan has an almost incredible mastery of sherry casks

This is a very good whisky: the ABV, the age statement, the quality casks, the distillery... what's not to love? Extremely fresh and bright: very sweet, woody, sappy, and spicy. Slightly creamy, floral, and buttery. Some bourbon-like vibes. Lots of milk chocolate, coffee, foresty notes, ginger, vanilla, dates, toffee, paprika, virgin oak (bourbon-style), buttery croissants, nuts, and honey. With a few drops of water and a bit of time, it evolves in all directions. On the nose, sweet toffee, chocolate and chili ice cream, loads of oak notes ranging from sappy pine and herbal eucalyptus to aromatic pepper and raw ginger, with even a distant touch of nail polish and varnish. Vanilla, hard candy, red fruits, honey, toasted caramel, hazelnut, figs. A buttery and floral background lingers underneath. Pretty wild but elegant at the same time. On the palate, tons of sweet red fruits (raspberry jam mixed with bitter orange marmalade), with hints of strawberry, pineapple, and apricot. A burst of bitter dark cocoa layered with earthy coffee, small hard raisins, toasted caramel, Mexican cajeta, sweet hazelnut (Nutella?), bitter almond, candied cherries, blond tobacco, chocolate chip cookies... it keeps going. This is a busy whisky. Salty, honeyed, and floral touches, even some leather. All of it rests on a base of vanilla and butter from the distant but still noticeable distillate. The finish is astringent, spicy, sweet, and slightly salty, dominated by wood, with toffee soaked in red fruits, vanilla, dates, honey, herbs... Thick and oily. Very intense, it is as sweet as it is spicy, which works pretty well. Obviously, the casks overpower the distillate, it’s clearly overoaked. It’s a big, oaky sherry bomb, impressively complex for its age thanks to the ABV, with few to no dissonant notes (not too much char, not overly spicy oak, not too astringent). But in my opinion, there's a bit too much nail polish, it holds it back from reaching the next level. It’s not exactly balanced (but what cask strength sherry bomb really is?), and definitely a bold dram. I'm not always in the mood for a cloying, overoaked, and spicy sherry bomb, but when I am, this one is absolutely delicious. It has improved quite a bit a few weeks after opening. It now reminds me a bit of Cotswolds Sherry Cask, a lot of woody and fruity complexity. No sulfur notes for me. It drinks dangerously well without water. If you're into this kind of whisky, an absolute bargain.

While this is definitely a good whisky, I can’t escape the thought that it could’ve developed into something far superior. Preferably after being re-racked into dead oak.

87,5

Aroma: pleasant dried berries, blueberries, blackberries, caramel, dark chocolate, after a while figs, plums, maybe light sulfur, raisins 86 slightly closed aroma. Taste: a little milder than the previous one, caramel, dark dessert chocolate with nuts, cinnamon, dry cocoa, dark dried cherry jam, sulfur, plum jam, cinnamon .87 Finish: medium length towards long, buckwheat honey, leather, dark sweet chocolate, roasted nuts, smoked prunes 86.5

This cask strength Macallan is basically Christmas in a glass, with a bit of orange zest and a nip of liquorice for contrast. Warm, nostalgic, and rich, like someone melted a festive dessert into your dram. The nose is a standout — the kind you pause to revisit before every sip.

The Macallan character is recognizable on the nose, in my opinion. However, I think it makes sense to add a little water to the whisky directly. As always with the SV 100 Proof Edition, they've done everything right for the price, especially if you want a Macallan at an affordable price. Whether the advanced connoisseur then needs a whole bottle of it is a matter of taste.

Traditionally, the Signatory Vintage 100 Proof series has a beautiful deep color, almost saturated with dark amber. It's a strange phenomenon for me to see Macallan selling out "for pennies". Maybe broken, maybe dirty, maybe... For the price of €50 this is a very good whisky, very fruity, with chocolate, leather and pleasant notes of sulphur in the taste. I am glad that Macallan is selling out so much, because at least you can taste good whisky for a small price. I am only sad that this whisky disappears faster than it appears. If someone has the opportunity, it would be worth getting a bottle.... "On my responsibility"..., you will certainly be satisfied, and if not, I will gladly buy it back.

That's it. Deep, dark, heavy, tart. On the palate, dark fruits such as dates, figs, but also dried apple rings. In the background, a hint of a smoky idea, freshly polished leather saddle, furniture polish. Reminiscence of a caramel Stollwerk. The alcohol is fantastically integrated, barely noticeable on the nose and noticeable as a light tingle on the tongue. On the palate, there is a heavy, deep, tart sweetness with spicy impressions of the oak barrel. Long finish with reminiscences of the impressions. A beautiful, noble whisky!

A successful, contemporary sherry platter with a truly excellent price-performance ratio at just under €50. The nose, in my opinion, is rather interchangeable, almost a bit disappointing, but I really enjoyed this bottling on the palate. While it's not particularly complex, it's intense, full, sweet, very harmonious, and extremely chocolatey. Fortunately, the bottling is also quite "clean"—no rotten wood or significant sulfur aromas in sight. Well done, Signatory!

I was skeptical whether the bottle could deliver at that price. And it can. Very, very good value for money. Better with a little water. Softer and more harmonious. 81-85 – Wow, really good one

a very deep and rich sherried whisky. pleasant on the nose and balanced in the mouth. The whisky is creamy with a long lasting taste. for 50 euros this is a steal.

Heavy sherry casks, but too much sulfur, spicy and pungent, very young

orange effervescent, walnuts, bitter sevilla oranges, grapefruit peel, cloves, dried prunes, licorice (not confectionary), bitter almonds, tannic astringency from fresh oak, water helps to open up and you can really add a lot Notably related to #27, bit rougher and more intense, feels slightly better integrated in direct comparison, more on tannic, dryness, darker oranges, heavier cask influence, less pronounced sweetness and less sulphurous/flinty. Distillery is even harder to guess behind all that cask for me, but if you add a lot of water you might think that you recognize it. However, this is good fun to tickle that '1st fill sherry cask' itch one might have from time to time.

I think it's really well done. It's round, creamy and "dark" in taste. I'm not usually an M fan, but this one is really great. It's in the same direction as the SV Vases with M from 2023, only somehow "lighter". The alcohol is also well integrated. The taste is like East Frisian bean soup (rum raisins), only better :-)

For the first time in years I bought and drank a Macallan. The whisky has a nice structure and is very oily. Yes, Macallan can be very nice. Unfortunately, the alcohol percentage at the OB is always low and the whisky is filtered. I immediately bought another bottle of this one.

Smell: Medium to full bouquet, talcum/bicycle tube note, vanilla, nutty, forest honey, cognac note, subtle sweetness, toffee, leather Taste: present but well-integrated alcohol, woody, not incredibly differentiated, cinnamon, dark cherries, spice notes, dark chocolate, medium to long aftertaste with (a little too present) woody bitter note, drying Color: saffron, medium water rim, clear Conclusion: Even if in the discussions Miltonduff was sometimes suspected to be behind the label - the talcum/bicycle tube note in the nose is (for me) clear evidence of Macallan - here in a particularly woody version, not a paragon of complexity, but the distillery character is still clearly recognizable and all in all this is a real bargain for the price asked for...

Of course, everyone knows that Speyside (M) isn't Mortlach or Miltonduff. And then there are the pathetic rip-off artists among the whisky dealers – who are always recognizable in the base by the fact that they still have whiskies that are actually sold out and offer them well above the actual retail price – who are also offering this whisky from the affordable 100 Proof Edition for €20 more than the series' original price. And yet we know that the next Speyside (M) will come. Because at M, not 150,000 LPA are distilled, but 15 million LPA. And they have to be drunk somehow. And then there's the fact that the independent Macallans (oops, just mentioned the name...) aren't necessarily all that good, as yesterday's tasting impressively demonstrated. At least the basic specs are correct: 13 years old, strong color from 1st fill Oloroso butts. So let’s forget the reservations about Speyside (M). glen-efze.de

Not my sherry profile, thanks Flävi

From this 2011 vintages, this cask 29 is the most complex rich body and fat..more long and intense 90P

Modern sherry profile, which is what I expected. Ripe yellow and especially red fruits (especially grapes, plums and apples), trail mix with a few nuts and more raisins. Some bitterness and spice from the wood (which you have to like). Since some testers claim to detect sulphur here, I would not have thought of that, although I am rather insensitive to it, although not completely. I am more on the side of the Whisky Viking that the whisky has a kind of positively dirty basic character, which may remind some people of sulphur, but it is definitely not. It is more like ignition pads. Can be enjoyed neat or with (a little) water. Conclusion: A rather uncomplex but drinkable and colorful "fruit basket whisky". The whisky is very attractive for a "007 whisky" due to its price. The Secret Speyside Distillery (M), which is advertised very openly between the lines, apparently had to get rid of a few spicy (wood-heavy) barrels, as the whisky contained would have been too characterful and not delicate enough for the standards. The result is a whisky that, precisely because of its character, would probably be more suitable for the everyday whisky of a James Bond. In terms of quality, I give it 87 points. Considering the price and the distillery behind the whisky, the whisky deserves a big extra point. It can compete with much more expensive whiskies and would even be fairly priced at €60 to €70. Happy to come again and hats off, Signatoy.

Worst Macallan ever tasted. SV's quality is decreasing fast recently, mainly because of the poor quality of whisky bottled in this type of white or black label.

Most likely a Macallan The nose is very marked by the oloroso cask, but without heaviness. Hazelnuts, candied orange peel, walnuts, curry, cloves, plums, mint and dried fruit. The palate is in perfect harmony with dark chocolate and white pepper. A very nice balance with a lovely viscosity. A delicious, fruity finish without being heavy. Glass background on oloroso wood. Water adds volume, especially in the mouth. 88/100

Heaviily-sherried "Signatory taste", with only subtle citrus-y notes of "M". Not bad actually, in terms of first fill sherry whiskies.

A delicious sherry board. Not particularly complex. But delicious! I don't get the velvety creaminess of the (old) real "M"s. But I didn't expect that. But I don't see ratings as high as many other Base users either.

I feel this bottle is overrated by many people here. It's a Macallan packed with fresh sherry influences. Let's be honest, it's a relatively dark affair with influences of dark chocolate, oak, black currants, black coffee, various nuts and a touch of sulphur plus strong heat and spice. Can’t you “conjure up” something better from Macallan New Make than this? Yes, it tastes quite good, it's a decent standard, but it's nothing special and remains generic. I don't find the Macallan character. I can achieve the aromas here with any other Highland/Speyside New Make if I store it in proper first fill PX/Oloroso casks. It's definitely worth the original €40, but not much more.

Aroma：Pronounced；Palate：87/100; Aftertaste：Med-Long.

First impressions: oily, deep, rich modern sherry fireside/dessert whisky. The neck pour required some water to become fully scrumptious. While I'm sure it will get even better over the next months and merits deeper reflection it can simply be enjoyed as a moreish delight. Value is utterly amazing, believe the hype...

Great whisky, like their regular, modern black packaging sherry 12 on steroids. Far superior to the classic cuts. Clean, my guess is people are mistaking Macallans heavy distillate for sulphur. The grade is taking the unbelievable price into account.

My first sip, wow... and it remains an outstanding whisky My criteria: up to 30 to give away up to 60 good whisky up to 90 above average over 90 top

Surprisingly good. Sulfur notes and balanced meaty body. Among the best Macallan distilled in this century.

Completely overrated and too much sulfur influence

A great value 100-proof series Considering the price, it’s a very solid choice.