Report

WINETASTER ON 10/05/09 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N
Copyright (c) 1995-2009 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

FLIGHT 1:
Number of Judges = 7
Number of Wines = 8

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:

Wine A is Echézeaux, A.F.Gros, 1990 tied for 6th place
Wine B is Echézeaux, Jayer-Gilles, 1993 ........ 5th place
Wine C is Echézeaux, Jayer-Gilles, 1990 ........ 4th place
Wine D is Echézeaux, DRC, 1993 ........ 2nd place
Wine E is Echézeaux, N. Potel, 1999 ........ 3rd place
Wine F is Echézeaux, Jayer-Gilles, 1999 ........ 1st place
Wine G is Grands-Echézeaux, N. Potel, 1999 tied for 6th place
Wine H is Grands-Echézeaux, Rene Engel,1993 ........ 8th place

The Judges's Rankings

Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H

Alexa 3. 2. 7. 8. 4. 1. 5. 6.
Burt 8. 7. 6. 5. 2. 1. 3. 4.
Mike 5. 6. 8. 7. 2. 1. 4. 3.
Alan 7. 4. 3. 1. 6. 2. 5. 8.
Ed 3. 8. 1. 4. 6. 2. 7. 5.
John 6. 4. 5. 3. 2. 1. 7. 8.
Dick 6. 3. 2. 1. 8. 4. 7. 5.

Table of Votes Against

Wine -> A B C D E F G H

Group Ranking -> 6 5 4 2 3 1 6 8
Votes Against -> 38 34 32 29 30 12 38 39

( 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 = 0.2604

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation
is quite small, 0.0781. 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 0.8024
Alan 0.5868
Dick 0.1437
Burt 0.1317
Ed -0.0240
Alexa -0.0599
Mike -0.1198

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 Echezeaux, Jayer-Gilles, 1999
---------------------------------------------------
2. ........ 2nd place Wine D is Echezeaux, DRC, 1993
3. ........ 3rd place Wine E is Echezeaux, N. Potel, 1999
4. ........ 4th place Wine C is Echezeaux, Jayer-Gilles, 1990
5. ........ 5th place Wine B is Echezeaux, Jayer-Gilles, 1993
6. tied for 6th place Wine A is Echezeaux, A.F.Gros, 1990
7. tied for 6th place Wine G is Grands-Echezeaux, N. Potel, 1999
8. ........ 8th place Wine H is Grands-Echezeaux, Rene Engel,1993

We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering.
The Friedman Chi-square value is 12.7619. The probability that this could
happen by chance is 0.0781

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

Alexa Burt Mike

Alexa 1.000 0.143 0.571
Burt 0.143 1.000 0.762
Mike 0.571 0.762 1.000
Alan -0.119 0.143 -0.333
Ed -0.167 -0.024 -0.143
John 0.357 0.405 0.238
Dick -0.357 -0.357 -0.667

Alan Ed John

Alexa -0.119 -0.167 0.357
Burt 0.143 -0.024 0.405
Mike -0.333 -0.143 0.238
Alan 1.000 0.310 0.643
Ed 0.310 1.000 0.190
John 0.643 0.190 1.000
Dick 0.714 0.381 0.190

Dick

Alexa -0.357
Burt -0.357
Mike -0.667
Alan 0.714
Ed 0.381
John 0.190
Dick 1.000

Pairwise correlations in descending order

0.762 Burt and Mike Significantly positive
0.714 Alan and Dick Significantly positive
0.643 Alan and John Not significant
0.571 Alexa and Mike Not significant
0.405 Burt and John Not significant
0.381 Ed and Dick Not significant
0.357 Alexa and John Not significant
0.310 Alan and Ed Not significant
0.238 Mike and John Not significant
0.190 John and Dick Not significant
0.190 Ed and John Not significant
0.143 Burt and Alan Not significant
0.143 Alexa and Burt Not significant
-0.024 Burt and Ed Not significant
-0.119 Alexa and Alan Not significant
-0.143 Mike and Ed Not significant
-0.167 Alexa and Ed Not significant
-0.333 Mike and Alan Not significant
-0.357 Alexa and Dick Not significant
-0.357 Burt and Dick Not significant
-0.667 Mike and Dick Significantly negative

COMMENT:

The tasting was from three great vintages from the best vineyards of Romanée.
Th wines fall roughly into three categories: (1)The 1999 Jayer-Gilles, which had
extraordinary bouquet that set it apart from the other wines. (2) The 1990 made by A. F.
Gros, the 1999 Grands-Echézeaux made by Potel and the 1993 Grands-Echézeaux
made by Engel, which were rated lowest, and (3) all the other wines that essentially tied
with each other. Only the 1999 Jayer-Gilles was significantly liked. Interestingly, among
the three wines that were least favored no winemaker appears more than once and no year
appears more than once. The group of Jayer-Gilles wines beats the aggregate of the remaining
wines: the statistic introduced by Quandt (Journal of Wine Economics, May 2007) is 0.747,
while the lower tail critical value is 0.765. But none of the wines disappointed and we would
be happy to drink any one of them, although except for the Jayer-Gilles 1999, the bouquet of
the wines was slow to develop. They were all well within their life span. The Grands-Echézeaux
do not perform better than the Echézeaux and there seem to be no major differences
among the vintages. Interestingly, the 1999 Potel beat the 1999 Grands-Echézeaux.
The group was surprised by the dark and deep color of many of the wines.

All this reconfirms how wonderful a great bottle of Echézeaux can be.

Return to previous page