WINETASTER ON 04/02/07 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2007 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Ch. Lafite-Rothschild 1978 tied for 1st place Wine B is Ch. Cos d'Estournel 1978 ........ 8th place Wine C is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1978 ........ 5th place Wine D is Ch. Mouton-Rothschild 1978 ........ 7th place Wine E is Ch. Leoville Las Cases 1978 tied for 3rd place Wine F is Ch. Latour 1978 ........ 6th place Wine G is Ch. Haut Brion 1978 tied for 3rd place Wine H is Ch. Petrus 1978 tied for 1st place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Orley 2. 5. 4. 1. 8. 3. 7. 6. Frank 5. 6. 1. 8. 4. 7. 2. 3. Mike 2. 8. 4. 6. 1. 7. 3. 5. Ed 8. 2. 7. 5. 1. 6. 3. 4. John 1. 7. 5. 3. 8. 6. 4. 2. Bob 2. 7. 5. 8. 3. 6. 4. 1. Burt 4. 8. 3. 5. 2. 1. 7. 6. Dick 5. 7. 8. 6. 4. 3. 1. 2.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 1 8 5 7 3 6 3 1 Votes Against -> 29 50 37 42 31 39 31 29
( 8 is the best possible, 64 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 = 0.1451
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.3217. 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 Correlation Price Bob 0.8193 -0.5952 Mike 0.5952 -0.1667 Dick 0.2289 -0.8810 Frank 0.1667 -0.0952 John 0.0719 -0.4048 Burt -0.1429 -0.1905 Ed -0.3353 0.1190 Orley -0.6467 0.1667
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. tied for 1st place Wine A is Ch. Lafite-Rothschild 1978 2. tied for 1st place Wine H is Ch. Petrus 1978 3. tied for 3rd place Wine G is Ch. Haut Brion 1978 4. tied for 3rd place Wine E is Ch. Leoville Las Cases 1978 5. ........ 5th place Wine C is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1978 6. ........ 6th place Wine F is Ch. Latour 1978 7. ........ 7th place Wine D is Ch. Mouton-Rothschild 1978 --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine B is Ch. Cos d'Estournel We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 8.1250. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.3217
We now test whether the group ranking of wines is correlated with the prices of the wines. The rank correlation between them is -0.6386. At the 10% level of significance this would have to exceed the critical value of 0.5240 to be significant.
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 0.74 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.64 for significance at the 0.1 level Orley Frank Mike Orley 1.000 -0.595 -0.381 Frank -0.595 1.000 0.524 Mike -0.381 0.524 1.000 Ed -0.762 0.024 0.000 John 0.476 0.048 0.143 Bob -0.452 0.571 0.667 Burt 0.167 -0.095 0.286 Dick -0.452 0.143 0.238 Ed John Bob Orley -0.762 0.476 -0.452 Frank 0.024 0.048 0.571 Mike 0.000 0.143 0.667 Ed 1.000 -0.619 -0.048 John -0.619 1.000 0.381 Bob -0.048 0.381 1.000 Burt -0.357 -0.238 0.071 Dick 0.262 0.190 0.500 Burt Dick Orley 0.167 -0.452 Frank -0.095 0.143 Mike 0.286 0.238 Ed -0.357 0.262 John -0.238 0.190 Bob 0.071 0.500 Burt 1.000 -0.048 Dick -0.048 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.667 Mike and Bob Significantly positive 0.571 Frank and Bob Not significant 0.524 Frank and Mike Not significant 0.500 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.476 Orley and John Not significant 0.381 John and Bob Not significant 0.286 Mike and Burt Not significant 0.262 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.238 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.190 John and Dick Not significant 0.167 Orley and Burt Not significant 0.143 Frank and Dick Not significant 0.143 Mike and John Not significant 0.071 Bob and Burt Not significant 0.048 Frank and John Not significant 0.024 Frank and Ed Not significant 0.000 Mike and Ed Not significant -0.048 Burt and Dick Not significant -0.048 Ed and Bob Not significant -0.095 Frank and Burt Not significant -0.238 John and Burt Not significant -0.357 Ed and Burt Not significant -0.381 Orley and Mike Not significant -0.452 Orley and Bob Not significant -0.452 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.595 Orley and Frank Not significant -0.619 Ed and John Not significant -0.762 Orley and Ed Significantly negative
COMMENT: These wines were from the cellar of one member of the group and were in excellent cellaring conditions; so these comments are for wines from an excellent cellar. Despite the fact that the wines are rarely talked about in the wine press any more, we found them to be uniformly excellent for the dinner table today. These wines are representative of classic clarets in the British sense i.e., they combine austerity with good fruit but a noticeable lack of bombastic character. While they were all mature, they have another 5-10 years to go. Incidentally, they all had a superb bouquet. While there was not a single wine that the group judged to be of significantly highest quality, four of the wines received essentially the highest score. These were Lafite, Leoville, Haut Brion and Petrus. These wines do not have high points in Parker's books and those expecting the fruit bomb, bombastic wines will be disappointed.
Return to previous page