Whisky Advocate

New Dalmore “Mackenzie”

February 18th, 2010

I was just invited to the launch of a new Dalmore whisky on March 17th. Whyte & Mackay are keeping Richard Paterson & Co. very busy creating new whiskies. (That’s a good thing!)

I am still digging out from my piles of mail and email, but here’s what my invite said:

Richard Paterson and Caberfeidh, Chief of the Clan Mackenzie, invite you to join them at the launch of The Dalmore Mackenzie, a unique single malt celebrating the daring spirit and courage of The Mackenzie family, owners of The Dalmore distillery for almost a century.

I don’t know if I’ll be able to attend. Either way, I would imagine that I’ll get a sample to review.

I’ll provide more information as I get it, so stay tuned. And if anyone else knows more info, please post it up.

Update: The information I have says this about this new whisky. It’s a 1992 vintage, matured initially in American white oak for 11 years, then transferred to port pipes from Oporto for a further 6 years. Bottled at 46%.

26 Responses to “New Dalmore “Mackenzie””

  1. Thomas Mckenzie says:

    With a name like that, it has to be good.

  2. Mark Davis says:

    If it’s in New York I can do you a solid and attend in your place.

  3. lawschooldrunk says:

    Dalmore is shifting away from their quality/price ratio. Not worth it to buy anymore.

  4. B.J. Reed says:

    Yes, so where is this launch supposed to happen?

  5. two-bit cowboy says:

    Welcome back, John. Something struck me when I opened WDJK just now. Three of your four posts begin with the word “new.” In the grand mass of posters here I am probably a relative newcomer to the barrage of distilleries’ new releases, seemingly, every week.

    Back when car bodies changed every September we had a couple malts from which to choose. Now most car models look the same for ten or more years in a row and we could literally drink a new whisky every day and never taste them all.

    When did this trend begin? Can’t we drink the same dram today we drank a few years ago? We liked it then, didn’t we? I’m not criticizing here, just curious”izing.”

    • John Hansell says:

      You have a good point–there’s nothing wrong with what’s already out there. But, part of my job is to let whisky enthusiasts know about new whiskies coming out. And I try to do it as soon as possible so those interested can get their bottle before they run out (may are limited-editions). I was gone for almost a week, and there’s a lot of new cool whiskies coming out. I will talk about more tomorrow.

  6. Patrick says:

    any price info?

  7. Seth Nadel says:

    The Dalmore 12yr used to be the best quality to price ratio on the market. That changed once Shaw-Ross took it over. I don’t mind price increases, but they jacked it up at least $10 bottle. That’s a sure way to kill sales. Such a shame. I love that whisky. Tamdhu 10yr is now the best value.

    • lawschooldrunk says:

      :) That’s what I said in post 3

      • Seth Nadel says:

        It’s shocking. It used to sell for $28/bottle. One publication (can’t remember which one) named it “Best Value”. Now it’s over $40. It doesn’t sell like it use to. I also think they made a mistake by getting rid of the Cigar Malt. I know a lot of people who loved that whisky and search high and low for it. Oh well. Life goes on.

      • MrTH says:

        But when you see a bottle of malt selling for $28, what’s the first thing you think? “Ah, the cheap stuff.” Price positioning is such a weird psychological game. We all think “You get what you pay for,” and subconsciously the price tells us what the producer presumably thinks of its product, and thus what we should think of it. Theoretically price is a function of supply and demand, but marketing is all about manipulating that. It’s almost like a sidewalk shell game, in that it’s all well and good until the rube–uh, consumer–suddenly gets a whiff of the fact that he’s being duped, and takes extreme umbrage.

        Now excuse me, I’m off to escort a busload of, um, consumers to the casino….

        • B.J. Reed says:

          I noted on another thread somewhere that I got the 12 YO for $9.99 at Sams Club about seven years ago and included two tasting glasses! – Still have the glasses and one bottle of the 12 that I am unlikely to open any time soon!

  8. John Hansell says:

    The information I have says this about this new whisky: A 1992 vintage, matured initially in American white oak for 11 years, then transferred to port pipes from Oporto for a further 6 years. Bottled at 46%.

  9. […] first wrote about it here last month. This press release came in yesterday, but I didn’t get a chance to put it up until […]

© Copyright 2014. Whisky Advocate. All rights reserved.