WINETASTER ON 11/03/08 WITH 6 JUDGES AND 7 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2008 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 6 Number of Wines = 7
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Ch. Latour '65 ........ 7th place Wine B is Ch. Latour '79 tied for 4th place Wine C is Ch. Pichon Longueville Baron '75 ........ 6th place Wine D is Ch. Latour '53 ........ 1st place Wine E is Ch. Mouton Rothschild '67 ........ 3rd place Wine F is Ch. Latour '80 ........ 2nd place Wine G is Ch. Latour '83 tied for 4th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G John 7. 3. 5. 1. 4. 2. 6. Mike 7. 5. 6. 1. 3. 4. 2. Burt 7. 3. 6. 1. 5. 2. 4. Bob 7. 6. 5. 3. 4. 1. 2. Ed 7. 5. 3. 2. 4. 1. 6. Dick 3. 5. 4. 1. 2. 6. 7.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G
Group Ranking -> 7 4 6 1 3 2 4 Votes Against -> 38 27 29 9 22 16 27
( 6 is the best possible, 42 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 = 0.5278
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0042. 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 0.7928 Burt 0.7207 Ed 0.7143 Mike 0.6071 Bob 0.5357 Dick 0.0901
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 Ch. Latour '53 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine F is Ch. Latour '80 3. ........ 3rd place Wine E is Ch. Mouton Rothschild '67 4. tied for 4th place Wine G is Ch. Latour '83 5. tied for 4th place Wine B is Ch. Latour '79 6. ........ 6th place Wine C is Ch. Pichon Longueville Baron '75 --------------------------------------------------- 7. ........ 7th place Wine A is Ch. Latour '65 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 19.0000. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0042 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 0.79 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.71 for significance at the 0.1 level John Mike Burt John 1.000 0.536 0.893 Mike 0.536 1.000 0.714 Burt 0.893 0.714 1.000 Bob 0.464 0.714 0.643 Ed 0.821 0.357 0.643 Dick 0.250 0.107 -0.036 Bob Ed Dick John 0.464 0.821 0.250 Mike 0.714 0.357 0.107 Burt 0.643 0.643 -0.036 Bob 1.000 0.607 -0.357 Ed 0.607 1.000 0.143 Dick -0.357 0.143 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.893 John and Burt Significantly positive 0.821 John and Ed Significantly positive 0.714 Mike and Burt Significantly positive 0.714 Mike and Bob Significantly positive 0.643 Burt and Ed Not significant 0.643 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.607 Bob and Ed Not significant 0.536 John and Mike Not significant 0.464 John and Bob Not significant 0.357 Mike and Ed Not significant 0.250 John and Dick Not significant 0.143 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.107 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.036 Burt and Dick Not significant -0.357 Bob and Dick Not significant
COMMENT: It is very unusual to taste such a great range of distinguished wines including a variety of great and off vintages. In particular we had the opportunity to taste a variety of Latour vintages that are renowned for their performance in off years. The '53 Latour performed consistent with its reputation. What was more surprising was the performance of the off vintages, particularly the '80 Latour and the '67 Mouton. In the light of the astronomical prices that are being asked for recent first growths, it is often worth while to take a chance on older vintages, including those of lesser repute when available at attractive prices. On the whole, this shows that the older Bordeaux are holding up well.
Return to previous page