WINETASTER ON 05/04/09 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 7 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2003 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

A Vertical Tasting of Clos Martinet from Priorat

FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 7

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:

Wine A is Clos Martinet 1996 ........ 6th place Wine B is Clos Martinet 2003 ........ 2nd place Wine C is Clos Martinet 2002 ........ 3rd place Wine D is Clos Martinet 1995 ........ 7th place Wine E is Clos Martinet 2005 ........ 5th place Wine F is Clos Martinet 2004 ........ 4th place Wine G is Clos Martinet 2000 ........ 1st place

The Judges's Rankings

Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G Ed 6. 7. 4. 2. 5. 1. 3. Mike 4. 1. 2. 6. 3. 7. 5. John 4. 5. 6. 7. 3. 2. 1. Orley 4. 5. 3. 6. 1. 7. 2. Bob 4. 2. 3. 6. 7. 5. 1. Burt 7. 1. 3. 4. 5. 2. 6. Dick 5. 2. 4. 7. 6. 3. 1.

Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G

Group Ranking -> 6 2 3 7 5 4 1 Votes Against -> 34 23 25 38 30 27 19

( 7 is the best possible, 49 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 = 0.1866

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.2503. 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 Dick 0.8547 Bob 0.7928 John 0.3964 Burt 0.2000 Orley 0.1429 Mike -0.0357 Ed -0.3604

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 G is 2000 2. ........ 2nd place Wine B is 2003 3. ........ 3rd place Wine C is 2002 4. ........ 4th place Wine F is 2004 5. ........ 5th place Wine E is 2005 6. ........ 6th place Wine A is 1996 --------------------------------------------------- 7. ........ 7th place Wine D is 1995 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 7.8367. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.2503 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 Ed Mike John Ed 1.000 -0.857 0.179 Mike -0.857 1.000 -0.321 John 0.179 -0.321 1.000 Orley -0.393 0.464 0.286 Bob -0.250 0.321 0.214 Burt 0.071 0.214 -0.286 Dick -0.071 0.143 0.571 Orley Bob Burt Ed -0.393 -0.250 0.071 Mike 0.464 0.321 0.214 John 0.286 0.214 -0.286 Orley 1.000 0.107 -0.536 Bob 0.107 1.000 0.071 Burt -0.536 0.071 1.000 Dick 0.036 0.857 0.250 Dick Ed -0.071 Mike 0.143 John 0.571 Orley 0.036 Bob 0.857 Burt 0.250 Dick 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.857 Bob and Dick Significantly positive 0.571 John and Dick Not significant 0.464 Mike and Orley Not significant 0.321 Mike and Bob Not significant 0.286 John and Orley Not significant 0.250 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.214 Mike and Burt Not significant 0.214 John and Bob Not significant 0.179 Ed and John Not significant 0.143 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.107 Orley and Bob Not significant 0.071 Ed and Burt Not significant 0.071 Bob and Burt Not significant 0.036 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.071 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.250 Ed and Bob Not significant -0.286 John and Burt Not significant -0.321 Mike and John Not significant -0.393 Ed and Orley Not significant -0.536 Orley and Burt Not significant -0.857 Ed and Mike Significantly negative

COMMENT: It is interesting that the two wines that were the lowest rated by the group were the oldest wines, 1995 and 1996. Conversely, the younger wines were preferred by the group. In fact, the oldest wines were ranked as a group at the bottom, the youngest wines were ranked second from top, and the middle-aged wines were ranked at the top. Clos Martinet is among the younger top growths of the Priorat region; thus, we might expect that the younger vintages were produced before the current status of of the wine was achieved. All these wines were extremely drinkable now and very lovely in every respect. Even the youngest wine was not too young to drink. While these wines are delicious; it should be noted that with the exception of the 1995 (13.5%) all these wines are between 14.0 an and 14.5 % alcohol, which may aid their enjoyment but does require a certain degree of caution.

Return to previous page