WINETASTER ON 01/07/08 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2008 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. Palmer 1966 ........ 2nd place Wine B is Ch. Montrose 1966 tied for 5th place Wine C is Ch. Ausone 1962 ........ 1st place Wine D is Ch. Leoville Las Cases 1964 tied for 5th place Wine E is Ch. Margaux 1966 ........ 8th place Wine F is Ch. Ausone 1964 tied for 3rd place Wine G is Ch. Beychevelle 1964 ........ 7th place Wine H is Ch. Gruaud Larose 1964 tied for 3rd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H John 3. 2. 1. 7. 8. 4. 6. 5. Frank 3. 7. 6. 8. 4. 1. 2. 5. Mike 2. 1. 4. 6. 5. 3. 8. 7. Orley 6. 1. 2. 4. 7. 3. 8. 5. Bob 1. 6. 3. 8. 4. 7. 5. 2. Ed 1. 7. 6. 2. 8. 5. 4. 3. Burt 7. 8. 2. 1. 6. 5. 4. 3. Dick 6. 8. 2. 4. 5. 3. 7. 1.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 2 5 1 5 8 3 7 3 Votes Against -> 29 40 26 40 47 31 44 31
( 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 = 0.1548
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.2775. 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 John 0.6266 Dick 0.3333 Bob 0.2143 Orley 0.0958 Ed 0.0719 Mike -0.0238 Burt -0.0476 Frank -0.0958
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 C is Ch. Ausone 1962 2. ........ 2nd place Wine A is Ch. Palmer 1966 3. tied for 3rd place Wine F is Ch. Ausone 1964 4. tied for 3rd place Wine H is Ch. Gruaud Larose 1964 5. tied for 5th place Wine B is Ch. Montrose 1966 6. tied for 5th place Wine D is Ch. Leoville Las Cases 1964 7. ........ 7th place Wine G is Ch. Beychevelle 1964 --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine E is Ch. Margaux 1966 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 8.6667. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.2775 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 John Frank Mike John 1.000 -0.095 0.643 Frank -0.095 1.000 -0.071 Mike 0.643 -0.071 1.000 Orley 0.690 -0.500 0.619 Bob 0.286 0.190 0.024 Ed -0.048 0.048 -0.214 Burt -0.214 -0.310 -0.667 Dick 0.024 -0.048 -0.310 Orley Bob Ed John 0.690 0.286 -0.048 Frank -0.500 0.190 0.048 Mike 0.619 0.024 -0.214 Orley 1.000 -0.310 -0.262 Bob -0.310 1.000 0.190 Ed -0.262 0.190 1.000 Burt 0.000 -0.190 0.310 Dick 0.167 0.190 0.143 Burt Dick John -0.214 0.024 Frank -0.310 -0.048 Mike -0.667 -0.310 Orley 0.000 0.167 Bob -0.190 0.190 Ed 0.310 0.143 Burt 1.000 0.667 Dick 0.667 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.690 John and Orley Significantly positive 0.667 Burt and Dick Significantly positive 0.643 John and Mike Not significant 0.619 Mike and Orley Not significant 0.310 Ed and Burt Not significant 0.286 John and Bob Not significant 0.190 Bob and Ed Not significant 0.190 Frank and Bob Not significant 0.190 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.167 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.143 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.048 Frank and Ed Not significant 0.024 Mike and Bob Not significant 0.024 John and Dick Not significant 0.000 Orley and Burt Not significant -0.048 Frank and Dick Not significant -0.048 John and Ed Not significant -0.071 Frank and Mike Not significant -0.095 John and Frank Not significant -0.190 Bob and Burt Not significant -0.214 John and Burt Not significant -0.214 Mike and Ed Not significant -0.262 Orley and Ed Not significant -0.310 Frank and Burt Not significant -0.310 Orley and Bob Not significant -0.310 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.500 Frank and Orley Not significant -0.667 Mike and Burt Significantly negative
COMMENT: We opened 10 bottles from the 1960's and found 8 that were in good condition. The two bottles that we discarded had very poor ullage. The good bottles, however, were all ullaged to upper-mid shoulder, which suggests that for wines from the 1960's that is the normal ullage level for age. The corks were all in good shape except for the Margaux which was crumbling. The wines were in superb condition and generally delicious. There were distinct differences among them. Virtually all the wines have their supporters. The wines were immediately approachable but within 15 minutes began to change and in some cases were quite fragile. This points to the need to serve all the wines immediately from the bottle and enjoy them without decanting. It is unfortunate that we only get to taste wines like this in the setting of a formal wine-tasting. It would be virtually impossible to have these wines with a dinner. We were particularly fortunate to have been able to sample two vintages of Ch. Ausone, which were ranked 1st and 3rd respectively. Note also that among the three vintages the underrated 1964 vintage held its own.
Return to previous page