Report

WINETASTER ON 01/18/07 WITH 5 JUDGES AND 4 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N
Copyright (c) 1995-2007 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

FLIGHT 1:
Number of Judges = 5
Number of Wines = 4

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:

Wine A is Souverain CS 1966 tied for 2nd place
Wine B is Opici CS 1960s ........ 4th place
Wine C is Inglenook CS 1963 tied for 2nd place
Wine D is Charles Krug CS 1960 ........ 1st place

The Judges's Rankings

Judge Wine -> A B C D

Burt 3. 4. 1. 2.
Orley 3. 4. 2. 1.
Ted 1. 3. 4. 2.
Ed 1. 4. 3. 2.
John 4. 1. 2. 3.

Table of Votes Against

Wine -> A B C D

Group Ranking -> 2 4 2 1
Votes Against -> 12 16 12 10

( 5 is the best possible, 20 is the worst)

Here is a measure of the correlation in the preferences of the judges which
ranges between 1.0 (perfect correlation) and 0.0 (no correlation):

W = 0.1520

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation
is rather large, 0.5164. Most analysts would say that unless this
probability is less than 0.1, the judges' preferences are not strongly
related.
We now analyze how each taster's preferences are correlated with the group
preference. A correlation of 1.0 means that the taster's preferences are a
perfect predictor of the group's preferences. A 0.0 means no correlation,
while a -1.0 means that the taster has the reverse ranking of the group.
This is measured by the correlation R.

Correlation Between the Ranks of
Each Person With the Average Ranking of Others

Name of Person Correlation R

Orley 0.6325
Burt 0.4000
Ed 0.4000
Ted -0.2108
John -0.8000

The wines were preferred by the judges in the following order. When the
preferences of the judges are strong enough to permit meaningful differentiation
among the wines, they are separated by -------------------- and are judged to be
significantly different.

1. ........ 1st place Wine D is Charles Krug CS 1960
2. tied for 2nd place Wine A is Souverain CS 1966
3. tied for 2nd place Wine C is Inglenook CS 1963
4. ........ 4th place Wine B is Opici CS 1960s

We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering.
The Friedman Chi-square value is 2.2800. The probability that this could
happen by chance is 0.5164

We now undertake a more detailed examination of the pair-wise rank correla-
tions that exist between pairs of judges. First, we present a table in which you
can find the correlation for any pair of judges, by finding one of the names in the
left hand margin and the other name on top of a column. A second table arranges
these correlations in descending order and marks which is significantly positive
significantly negative, or not significant. This may allow you to find clusters
of judges whose rankings were particularly similar or particularly dissimilar.

Pairwise Rank Correlations

Correlations must exceed in absolute value 1.00 for significance at the 0.05
level and must exceed 1.00 for significance at the 0.1 level

Burt Orley Ted

Burt 1.000 0.800 -0.400
Orley 0.800 1.000 0.000
Ted -0.400 0.000 1.000
Ed 0.200 0.400 0.800
John -0.200 -0.400 -0.800

Ed John

Burt 0.200 -0.200
Orley 0.400 -0.400
Ted 0.800 -0.800
Ed 1.000 -1.000
John -1.000 1.000

Pairwise correlations in descending order

0.800 Burt and Orley Not significant
0.800 Ted and Ed Not significant
0.400 Orley and Ed Not significant
0.200 Burt and Ed Not significant
0.000 Orley and Ted Not significant
-0.200 Burt and John Not significant
-0.400 Orley and John Not significant
-0.400 Burt and Ted Not significant
-0.800 Ted and John Not significant
-1.000 Ed and John Significantly negative

COMMENT:

These comments apply to two separate wine tastings. The first was intended to be a tasting
of 7 California pinot noirs from the 1960s, but by accident a cabernet sauvignon was included in the
blind tasting, while we thought that we had seven pinot noirs. The second tasting was
of 4 California cabernets of the 1960s. Several wines had no vintage indication, and these are
denoted in the above table identifying the wines as "1960s." The present report contains
the results of the pinot noir tasting; for the cabernet sauvignon tasting see Report 105.

The wines were obtained by one of us, John Lowrance, by purchase of a cellar from a widow whose
husband had collected the wines, but who did not sell them until many years after her late husband’s
death. The wines taken together provide a remarkable view of a collector locked in a time warp
of the 1960s. This collector’s red Bordeaux wines from the period make up a list that would be
both financially valuable and recognizable to wine lovers anywhere. The California pinots from this
period now have fallen into anonymity. The California cabernets from this period are remembered by
a few, but they have also fallen by the wayside.

First we provide some comments on the pinots. We opened the wines in advance of the event expecting
to find that some (perhaps all) would be oxidized. To find the 7 wines in the tasting we were forced
to eliminate 4 that were oxidized —-- an Almaden NV, 1966 and 1967 Robert Mondavi’s, and a Paul Masson NV.
The wines without vintage dates were almost certainly from the 1960s. It is ironic that at one time
both the Masson and Almaden names would have attracted a collector’s interest. This is a common piece
of history in California —-- indeed, one could argue that the Mondavi wines (this would have been nearly
the first vintage for Robert Mondavi) have come full circle, as Mondavi has now been sold to the
largest wine company in the world (Constellation), which has just recently announced missing its
quarterly net income target!

Ironically, one of the top wines was a Beaulieu Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Private Reserve 1966 --—
which had been served blind and put in the wrong tasting! In retrospect this might have been useful,
since the BVPR provides a benchmark for the wines --— it is probably one of the best known "quality wines"
from the period. By that standard the pinots did well, which may come as something of a shock to those
who think that pinot in California dates from the era of the movie "Sideways." The wines had noticeable
fruit characters but not noticeable pinot fruit characters. John Lowrance commented "it is remarkable
any of the wines are still good, many expensive red Burgundies of this age are shot." As a whole the
group found the wines interesting and drinkable, but they were not great fans of them today. Bob
Levine commented, "The three best wines of the tasting remain fresh and vibrant." Ironically, two of
the wineries, providing 3 of the wines, no longer exist—Christian Brothers and Inglenook --— and the Gallo
family has purchased the Louis Martini winery recently. Of the remaining wineries, none is well known
for pinot noir today.

The cabernet tasting was similar in some ways, different in others. With only 5 tasters remaining we
settled on sampling 4 wines. First, we opened three bottles of Livermore Valley’s Concannon cabernet
(a vertical as it turned out —-- 1963, 1964 and 1965) that were oxidized before settling on the 4 wines in
the tasting. These 4 wines were lovely and clearly were fresh with good fruit flavors. The surprise
in the group was the Opici wine, a brand historically associated with jug wines. This particular
bottle was a "limited release" from a separate vineyard called "Green Ranch," but where this is has
been lost to history apparently. The three top wines were from 3 of the top producers in their day.
The Krug wine was the family winery for the Mondavi’s before the split in that family. The great wine
producer John Daniel ran Inglenook, while the renowned Lee Stewart then ran Souverain. At that time
Souverain was a Napa winery up on Howell Mountain (unlike the brand today, which is in Sonoma) and
Stewart provided the first employment for both Mike Grgich and Warren Winiarski (the producers of the
winning cabernet and chardonnay wines in the famous Paris taste-off).

We are indebted to John Lowrance for purchasing these wines and for one very enjoyable look at
California wine history.

Return to previous page