WINETASTER ON 11-26-07 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, Copyright (c) 1995-2006
Number of judges = 7 Number of wines = 8
The wines and their identifying code designations
Wine name Code
06 Muller-Catoir, Riesling trocken (Pfalz) A 04 Petaluma Hanlin Hill (Australia) B 06 Hardegg, Vom Schloss (Austria) C 05 Knebel, Winninger Bruckstuck Sptls Feinher D 06 von Buhl, Riesling Sptls dry (Pfalz) E 05 Clemens Busch, Fahrlay Sptls (Mosel) F 06 Kunstler, Steilweg Old Vines (Rheingau) G 05 Clemens Busch, Vom Roten Schiefer (Mosel) H
Rank Table for Judges
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Craig 4. 7. 8. 1. 5. 3. 6. 2. Phoebe 8. 6. 7. 4. 5. 1. 3. 2. Susan 2. 8. 1. 4. 7. 5. 6. 3. Karl 6. 8. 7. 2. 5. 1. 4. 3. Nina 5. 7. 4. 1. 8. 3. 6. 2. Jean 5. 8. 4. 2. 6. 1. 7. 3. Andrew 2. 7. 8. 3. 6. 1. 4. 5.
Table of Votes Against
Wine -> A B C D E F G H Rank
1 0. 0. 1. 2. 0. 4. 0. 0. 2 2. 0. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0. 3. 3 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 2. 1. 3. 4 1. 0. 2. 2. 0. 0. 2. 0. 5 2. 0. 0. 0. 3. 1. 0. 1. 6 1. 1. 0. 0. 2. 0. 3. 0. 7 0. 3. 2. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 8 1. 3. 2. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. Votes -> 32. 51. 39. 17. 42. 15. 36. 20.
We now measure the amount of correlation (W) among the judges: W = 1.0 => perfect correlation, W = 0 => no correlation
We also provide a probability measure that this correlation is due to chance In this case the correlation is = 0.5743 Probability that correlation is due to chance = 0.0002
We compute the correlation of each taster with the average ranking of the oth- ers and with prices. 1.0 => perfect, 0 => none, -1.0 => total disagreement
Name of Person Correlation R Correlation Price
Jean 0.8810 0.3952 Karl 0.8503 0.8503 Craig 0.8095 0.5150 Nina 0.7381 0.3473 Andrew 0.6946 0.6228 Phoebe 0.4286 0.8144 Susan 0.2156 -0.0838
Rank correlation between the average ranking of wines and the prices
Correlation = 0.6587 Critical value = 0.5240
Table of Aggregate Wine Quality
Wine Ranksum Significance Wine Ranksum Significance Alphabetic Order Ranksum Order
A 32.0 F 15.0 SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH QUALITY B 51.0 SIGNIFICANTLY LOW QUALITY D 17.0 SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH QUALITY C 39.0 H 20.0 SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH QUALITY D 17.0 SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH QUALITY A 32.0 E 42.0 SIGNIFICANTLY LOW QUALITY G 36.0 F 15.0 SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH QUALITY C 39.0 G 36.0 E 42.0 SIGNIFICANTLY LOW QUALITY H 20.0 SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH QUALITY B 51.0 SIGNIFICANTLY LOW QUALITY
Friedman Test: Chi-square = 28.1429 Probability = 0.0002
Identification of Wines Votes Against
Wine A is 06 Muller-Catoir, Riesling trocken (Pfalz) 32. Wine B is 04 Petaluma Hanlin Hill (Australia) 51. Wine C is 06 Hardegg, Vom Schloss (Austria) 39. Wine D is 05 Knebel, Winninger Bruckstuck Sptls Feinher 17. Wine E is 06 von Buhl, Riesling Sptls dry (Pfalz) 42. Wine F is 05 Clemens Busch, Fahrlay Sptls (Mosel) 15. Wine G is 06 Kunstler, Steilweg Old Vines (Rheingau) 36. Wine H is 05 Clemens Busch, Vom Roten Schiefer (Mosel) 20.
Pairwise Rank Correlations
Correlations must exceed in absolute value 0.74 for significance at the 0.0 level and must exceed 0.64 for significance at the 0.1 level
Craig Phoebe Susan
Craig 1.000 0.524 0.143 Phoebe 0.524 1.000 -0.262 Susan 0.143 -0.262 1.000 Karl 0.810 0.833 0.048 Nina 0.690 0.405 0.595 Jean 0.690 0.476 0.524 Andrew 0.690 0.405 0.095
Karl Nina Jean
Craig 0.810 0.690 0.690 Phoebe 0.833 0.405 0.476 Susan 0.048 0.595 0.524 Karl 1.000 0.643 0.762 Nina 0.643 1.000 0.857 Jean 0.762 0.857 1.000 Andrew 0.714 0.405 0.524
Andrew
Craig 0.690 Phoebe 0.405 Susan 0.095 Karl 0.714 Nina 0.405 Jean 0.524 Andrew 1.000
Pairwise correlations in descending order
0.857 Nina and Jean Significantly positive 0.833 Phoebe and Karl Significantly positive 0.810 Craig and Karl Significantly positive 0.762 Karl and Jean Significantly positive 0.714 Karl and Andrew Significantly positive 0.690 Craig and Andrew Significantly positive 0.690 Craig and Jean Significantly positive 0.690 Craig and Nina Significantly positive 0.643 Karl and Nina Not significant 0.595 Susan and Nina Not significant 0.524 Craig and Phoebe Not significant 0.524 Susan and Jean Not significant 0.524 Jean and Andrew Not significant 0.476 Phoebe and Jean Not significant 0.405 Nina and Andrew Not significant 0.405 Phoebe and Nina Not significant 0.405 Phoebe and Andrew Not significant 0.143 Craig and Susan Not significant 0.095 Susan and Andrew Not significant 0.048 Susan and Karl Not significant -0.262 Phoebe and Susan Not significant
Comments: Most people deemed the Muller-Catoir wine very austere. Andrew thought this is an Austran wine (wrong). The Petaluma Riesling was hideous. We all mentioned petrol (the bad one), gasoline, diesel. This wine was almost undrinkable. Karl and Andrew thought that the wine by Hargegg had some of the traits of the Petaluma. A hint of gasoline and petrol. Most people liked the wine by Knebel. It was characterized as lightly sweet. Susan liked it even better after some time of breating. This is clearkly wine that gains with time. The wine by von Buhl was not liked very much. Most of us thought it was fizzy and astringent. Clemens Busch' Fahrlay Riesling Spatlese was the wine that had the most to offer. Dark yellow and an incredible richness in flavor and smell. The Kuenstler wine was the most expensive wine of the tasting ($44). However, it was not liked very much. We described it as hollow and empty. The last wine (H) was another Clemens Busch wine, 'Vom Roten Schiefer'. It had a 'delicious sweetness with a dry finish'.
Overall, this was a great tasting of dry and semi-dry Rieslings from Mosel, Rheingau, and Pfalz in Germany. There was also an Austrian and, as a ringer, an Australian wine.
Most of us agree that the top three wines were outstanding and way ahead of the pack. Surprisingly, these three wines were all from the Mosel
Return to previous page