WINETASTER ON 02/04/08 WITH 6 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2008 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

A Tasting of Recent Cortons
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 6 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Bressandes (Prince Florent) 2005 ........ 2nd place Wine B is (Toillot-Beaut) 1995 ........ 6th place Wine C is Bressandes (Lucien de Moine) 2003 tied for 3rd place Wine D is Renardes (Girardin) 1998 ........ 5th place Wine E is Bressandes (Prince Florent) 2002 ........ 1st place Wine F is Clos du Roi (Vougeraie) 2002 ........ 7th place Wine G is Clos du Roi (Chandon de Briailles) 2003 ........ 8th place Wine H is Clos du Roi (Girardin) 1997 tied for 3rd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Orley 1. 3. 7. 8. 2. 4. 6. 5. Ed 5. 7. 1. 8. 4. 3. 2. 6. Burt 4. 3. 6. 1. 2. 5. 8. 7. Bob 3. 6. 4. 2. 5. 7. 8. 1. John 4. 5. 3. 7. 2. 8. 6. 1. Dick 5. 6. 3. 2. 1. 7. 8. 4.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 2 6 3 5 1 7 8 3 Votes Against -> 22 30 24 28 16 34 38 24
( 6 is the best possible, 48 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 = 0.2275

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.2152. 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 Dick 0.6667 -0.3516 John 0.5270 0.2061 Bob 0.4762 -0.2667 Burt 0.2410 -0.6668 Orley 0.0000 -0.0364 Ed -0.4072 0.3395

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 E is Bressandes (Prince Florent) 2002 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine A is Bressandes (Prince Florent) 2005 3. tied for 3rd place Wine H is Clos du Roi (Girardin) 1997 4. tied for 3rd place Wine C is Bressandes (Lucien de Moine) 2003 5. ........ 5th place Wine D is Renardes (Girardin) 1998 6. ........ 6th place Wine B is (Toillot-Beaut) 1995 7. ........ 7th place Wine F is Clos du Roi (Vougeraie) 2002 --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine G is Clos du Roi (Chandon de Brialles) We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 9.5556. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.2152
We now test whether the group ranking of wines is correlated with the prices of the wines. The rank correlation between them is -0.2988. 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 Ed Burt Orley 1.000 -0.071 0.190 Ed -0.071 1.000 -0.619 Burt 0.190 -0.619 1.000 Bob -0.143 -0.524 0.238 John 0.262 0.048 -0.167 Dick -0.095 -0.262 0.595 Bob John Dick Orley -0.143 0.262 -0.095 Ed -0.524 0.048 -0.262 Burt 0.238 -0.167 0.595 Bob 1.000 0.500 0.643 John 0.500 1.000 0.500 Dick 0.643 0.500 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.643 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.595 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.500 Bob and John Not significant 0.500 John and Dick Not significant 0.262 Orley and John Not significant 0.238 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.190 Orley and Burt Not significant 0.048 Ed and John Not significant -0.071 Orley and Ed Not significant -0.095 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.143 Orley and Bob Not significant -0.167 Burt and John Not significant -0.262 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.524 Ed and Bob Not significant -0.619 Ed and Burt Not significant

COMMENT: These are well made and relatively young wines, and from the same vineyard, albeit one of the largest in Burgundy. There were no corked wines, or wines with other obvious flaws. The most preferred wine, by a top Burgundian producer, Prince Florent de Meraude, achieved a distinguished consensus. This demonstrates, among other things,the quality of the 2002 vintage. The Prince Florent wines were number 1 and 2 in the tasting and that suggests the high quality of this producer, although strictly speaking, there is an identification problem here, since the top two wines were Corton Bressandes, which also tied for third place. Furthermore, the number 2 placing of the 2005 vintage is suggestive that this vintage may have overall good potential. As a side note, we observe that the Prince de Florent wines had a lighter, some would say more correct, color. The interested reader may wish to compare this tasting to another Corton tasting that took place almost one year later, which is reported in Report 126.
Return to previous page