WINETASTER ON 12/01/08 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=Y 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. Ducru Beaucaillou 1999 ........ 3rd place Wine B is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1986 ........ 2nd place Wine C is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1970 ........ 1st place Wine D is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1978 ........ 5th place Wine E is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1989 ........ 4th place Wine F is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 2000 ........ 7th place Wine G is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1995 ........ 6th place Wine H is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1982 ........ 8th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Ed 6. 1. 7. 4. 2. 3. 5. 8. Orley 1. 6. 7. 8. 5. 4. 2. 3. Mike 2. 3. 1. 7. 4. 5. 6. 8. Dwight 7. 6. 1. 3. 2. 4. 5. 8. Bob 6. 5. 1. 4. 7. 8. 3. 2. Burt 6. 4. 1. 3. 2. 8. 5. 7. John 3. 1. 2. 5. 4. 6. 8. 7. Dick 2. 3. 5. 1. 8. 7. 4. 6.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 3 2 1 5 4 7 6 8 Votes Against -> 33 29 25 35 34 45 38 49
( 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 = 0.1629
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.2438. 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 0.7610 Burt 0.7066 Mike 0.6429 Dwight 0.2289 Dick 0.0723 Bob 0.0602 Ed -0.0952 Orley -0.7143
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. Ducru Beaucaillou 1970 2. ........ 2nd place Wine B is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1986 3. ........ 3rd place Wine A is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1999 4. ........ 4th place Wine E is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1989 5. ........ 5th place Wine D is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1978 6. ........ 6th place Wine G is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1995 7. ........ 7th place Wine F is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 2000 --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine H is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1982 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 9.1250. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.2438 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 Ed Orley Mike Ed 1.000 -0.310 0.119 Orley -0.310 1.000 -0.071 Mike 0.119 -0.071 1.000 Dwight 0.238 -0.667 0.333 Bob -0.690 -0.190 -0.095 Burt 0.143 -0.667 0.429 John 0.310 -0.429 0.810 Dick -0.071 -0.119 0.048 Dwight Bob Burt Ed 0.238 -0.690 0.143 Orley -0.667 -0.190 -0.667 Mike 0.333 -0.095 0.429 Dwight 1.000 0.000 0.738 Bob 0.000 1.000 0.333 Burt 0.738 0.333 1.000 John 0.238 -0.071 0.524 Dick -0.238 0.238 0.095 John Dick Ed 0.310 -0.071 Orley -0.429 -0.119 Mike 0.810 0.048 Dwight 0.238 -0.238 Bob -0.071 0.238 Burt 0.524 0.095 John 1.000 0.238 Dick 0.238 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.810 Mike and John Significantly positive 0.738 Dwight and Burt Significantly positive 0.524 Burt and John Not significant 0.429 Mike and Burt Not significant 0.333 Mike and Dwight Not significant 0.333 Bob and Burt Not significant 0.310 Ed and John Not significant 0.238 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.238 Dwight and John Not significant 0.238 Ed and Dwight Not significant 0.238 John and Dick Not significant 0.143 Ed and Burt Not significant 0.119 Ed and Mike Not significant 0.095 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.048 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.000 Dwight and Bob Not significant -0.071 Bob and John Not significant -0.071 Orley and Mike Not significant -0.071 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.095 Mike and Bob Not significant -0.119 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.190 Orley and Bob Not significant -0.238 Dwight and Dick Not significant -0.310 Ed and Orley Not significant -0.429 Orley and John Not significant -0.667 Orley and Dwight Significantly negative -0.667 Orley and Burt Significantly negative -0.690 Ed and Bob Significantly negative
COMMENT: All of these wines were without fault. The 1995 was the Wine Spectator "wine of the year" in 1998, with a score of 97. The three wines with the highest Parker scores were the 2000 (94), 1995 (94) and the 1982 (94). The current cost of the 2000 is about $275 and that of the 1982 is $465. We had some very big surprises, including a lot of disappointment with the 1982 and some surprises with the longevity of the 1970. The wines were clearly part of a continuous family. It is interesting that the three highest Parker ratings were the three lowest in this tasting. That says something about either Parker or the group. In years past, this group has had horizontal tastings of 1970 Bordeaux, including several first growths. The Ducru Beaucaillou was rated either first or second in those tastings.
Return to previous page