WINETASTER ON 04/06/09 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2009 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
A TASTING OF 2002 FRENCH AND AMERICAN PINOT NOIR WINES
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Kistler Pinot Noir Cuvee Catherine tied for 5th place Wine B is Romanee St. Vivant DRC ........ 7th place Wine C is Romanee Conti, DRC ........ 8th place Wine D is Musigny, Leroy ........ 3rd place Wine E is Chambertin, Leroy ........ 2nd place Wine F is Kistler Pinot Noir Cuvee Elizabet ........ 1st place Wine G is Romanee St. Vivant, Leroy tied for 5th place Wine H is Musigny Vielles Vignes Comte de Vogüe ........ 4th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H John 2. 7. 8. 6. 4. 5. 3. 1. Mike 8. 7. 5. 3. 2. 1. 6. 4. Burt 8. 7. 4. 1. 2. 5. 3. 6. Tom 1. 7. 8. 6. 5. 2. 3. 4. Bob 7. 2. 1. 3. 4. 8. 6. 5. Orley 4. 5. 6. 1. 3. 2. 7. 8. Dick 4. 1. 5. 8. 7. 2. 6. 3.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 5 7 8 3 2 1 5 4 Votes Against -> 34 36 37 28 27 25 34 31
( 7 is the best possible, 56 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 = 0.0671
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.8574. 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 Mike 0.6826 Orley 0.1091 Burt -0.1198 Tom -0.2892 John -0.5389 Bob -0.5714 Dick -0.6266
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 F is Kistler Pinot Noir Cuvee Elizabeth 2. ........ 2nd place Wine E is Chambertin, Leroy 3. ........ 3rd place Wine D is Musigny, Leroy 4. ........ 4th place Wine H is Musigny Vielles Vignes Comte de Vogüe 5. tied for 5th place Wine G is Romanee St. Vivant, Leroy 6. tied for 5th place Wine A is Kistler Pinot Noir Cuvee Catherine 7. ........ 7th place Wine B is Romanee St. Vivant DRC 8. ........ 8th place Wine C is Romanee Conti, DRC We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 3.2857. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.8574 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 Mike Burt John 1.000 -0.095 -0.262 Mike -0.095 1.000 0.595 Burt -0.262 0.595 1.000 Tom 0.762 -0.024 -0.333 Bob -0.690 -0.143 0.262 Orley -0.333 0.476 0.357 Dick 0.000 -0.238 -0.833 Tom Bob Orley John 0.762 -0.690 -0.333 Mike -0.024 -0.143 0.476 Burt -0.333 0.262 0.357 Tom 1.000 -0.976 0.071 Bob -0.976 1.000 -0.119 Orley 0.071 -0.119 1.000 Dick 0.143 -0.190 -0.286 Dick John 0.000 Mike -0.238 Burt -0.833 Tom 0.143 Bob -0.190 Orley -0.286 Dick 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.762 John and Tom Significantly positive 0.595 Mike and Burt Not significant 0.476 Mike and Orley Not significant 0.357 Burt and Orley Not significant 0.262 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.143 Tom and Dick Not significant 0.071 Tom and Orley Not significant 0.000 John and Dick Not significant -0.024 Mike and Tom Not significant -0.095 John and Mike Not significant -0.119 Bob and Orley Not significant -0.143 Mike and Bob Not significant -0.190 Bob and Dick Not significant -0.238 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.262 John and Burt Not significant -0.286 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.333 John and Orley Not significant -0.333 Burt and Tom Not significant -0.690 John and Bob Significantly negative -0.833 Burt and Dick Significantly negative -0.976 Tom and Bob Significantly negative
COMMENT: No oxidized or corked wines; everything as it should be. All of the wines were extraordinary and there was very little difference in the votes for the eight wines. Note that one of the Kistlers (cuvee Elizabeth, wine A) was accidentally a 2006 and not a 2002. The group, though not significantly predictive, seemed to divide into a group that liked the house style of the Leroy wines and the group that did not. It is interesting to note, which partly explains the overall lack of agreement, that one taster ranked the Leroy wines 1, 2, and 3; while another ranked them 6, 7 and 8 This strongly suggest that people who suggest that terroir is all that matters (i.e., only the vineyard matters) have not tasted enough of the best wines. Our host was very brave to insert the Kistler wines in a group of this stature from France, and the American wines were in the first and fifth places, above the average. The wines from Domaine Leroy were all young enough to have been produced by the method biodynamic. Surprising to some, in the comparisons between the DRC and the Leroy wines, the biodynamic wines were the winners by a substantial margin.And in the faceoff between the Musignys the biodynamic, Leroy won by a small margin.
Return to previous page