Whisky Advocate

Review: Macallan Royal Wedding

August 19th, 2011

Macallan Royal Wedding, 46.8%, £150

Rising above the tat issued to celebrate the nuptials of Prince William and Kate Middleton was this extremely limited (1,000 bottles) release from The Macallan. The nose is a mélange of rich fruits, marzipan, and beeswax/resin but it lifts with a drop of water to show apricot and heavy florals. The palate isn’t overly grippy, with more orange peel, almond, and characteristic oiliness. A malty/nutty smooth finish makes this a great one. —Dave Broom

Advanced Malt Advocate magazine rating: 92

(Not available in the U.S.)

16 Responses to “Review: Macallan Royal Wedding”

  1. bj reed says:

    Lets hope you don’t have to review a Royal Divorce bottling 🙂

  2. David says:

    Thanks John. I broke my own rules and bought this as an investment for my son thus I have no intention of ever opening it but it is nice to know what it tastes like.

    Around £250k profit for Macallan for one bottling. They’ll be hoping Will & Kate have about 20 sons.

    • Lawrence says:

      Yikes! Why is it that purchasers frequently assume 100% of the retail price goes to the distiller? David I think you’re 100k high on the total sales….

  3. David says:

    Oops – thought it was limited to 3,000 bottles Lawrence:
    £150 retail. -£25 VAT -£10 Duty -£5 design & packaging (probably not even that much) -£10 whisky (being very generous).

    There is no retail margin as it was sold through the distillery website, no marketing, no distribution costs.

    Therefore about £95 x 1,000 = £95,000

    Still, not bad considering it sold out in a few days.

  4. Louis says:

    Does anybody know how old the malt(s) in it are? If not too old, we might see something similar without the fancy packaging and price (or maybe I am being delusional).

    • EricH says:

      I seem to recall reading about the two malts being from William and Kate’s respective birth years but someone else can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

    • Red_Arremer says:

      I don’t think you’ll be seeing a cheaper version of this whiskey, Louis. This is a prestige bottling and that’s all. On the other hand there are plenty of better whiskeys out there for this price.

  5. mongo says:

    it says on the label (i don’t own it, i just clicked on the bottle image above to expand it) that the whisky is from two casks filled in 1996 and 1999. so, with an age statement this would have been a 12yo whisky.

    • Red_Arremer says:

      Nice– A 200-300 dollar 12 yo and it’s not even c/s…. But it was released for a royal wedding. Someone remind me again what the difference between real and perceived value is….

      • Scott says:

        “Someone remind me again what the difference between real and perceived value is….”

        Um, nothing? Seriously, in a free marketplace, the only measure of value is what customers are willing to pay for a thing, so an item’s perceived value *is* its real value. If one does not believe that this whisky is worth this price, then one can do as I do, and not buy it! Far be it from me to begrudge anyone who is willing to part with their money for this bottle, though. There’s no objective right and wrong to valuation for a product like this.

        Anyone buying a bottle of this to put aside for William’s coronation one day? Personally, I’ve got a bottle of contraband Cuban rum I’m saving to open the day the dictatorship falls, and a bottle of bourbon I’m saving for the Nationals’ first pennant, but that’s it on the saving-a-bottle-for-an-occasion front for me.

        • Red_Arremer says:

          Yes! My friends and I had a pool going and my 5$ was on someone responding by reciting the ideology of the free market so– Thanks Scott 😉 !

          Guess what– I’m not gonna buy this whiskey and I’m also going to say that it ought to be cheaper whether or not, things being as they are. someone might be willing to pay a mil for it. Just like sewage workers ought to make more than Mutual Funds Managers even though, things being as they are, you can get one to sign a contract for less. This sort of whisky premiumization should always be criticized.

          • Scott says:

            I’m with you, Red, and was kind of kidding around there. Anyway, isn’t the fundamental problem here not overpriced whisky, but having a monarchy? If you don’t have a monarchy, you don’t have royal weddings, and if you don’t have royal weddings (or coronations or Diamond Jubilees or whatnot), then you can’t stick slightly above-average 12-year-old whisky in a bottle, slap a “Royal Wedding” label on it, and tack $200 on to the price.

            In fact, I’m pretty sure “He has subjected us to a Profusion of overpriced commemorative Tchotchkes related to the various Weddings, Births, Coronations, and so forth, inherent in the conduct of a Monarchy,” was one of the complaints in the original text of the Declaration of Independence!

          • Red_Arremer says:

            hahaha– I think you’ve got something there, Scott. Royalty is abstractly implicated up in all luxury, hype, and self–aggrandizement. It’s just not the same in America. We didn’t see any overpriced Obama Inauguration Bourbons getting released, even when half the country seemed to be worshiping the guy– Though as my girlfriend just reminded me “There *were* tchotchkes.”;)

      • lawschooldrunk says:

        I’m surprised tattie heid (Mr. TH) didn’t chime in with his free market comments 😉

© Copyright 2017. Whisky Advocate. All rights reserved.