WINETASTER ON 05/03/10 WITH 6 JUDGES AND 7 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2010 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. de Beaucastel 1978 ........ 6th place Wine B is Ch. de Beaucastel 1981 tied for 2nd place Wine C is Ch. de Beaucastel 1985 ........ 7th place Wine D is Ch. de Beaucastel 1988 ........ 5th place Wine E is Ch. de Beaucastel 1990 ........ 1st place Wine F is Ch. de Beaucastel 1989 tied for 2nd place Wine G is Ch. de Beaucastel 1994 tied for 2nd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G Ed 5. 6. 7. 2. 1. 4. 3. Mike 2. 3. 6. 1. 7. 5. 4. Bob 3. 2. 7. 5. 1. 6. 4. Burt 3. 4. 6. 7. 1. 2. 5. John 7. 6. 5. 4. 2. 3. 1. Dick 7. 2. 4. 5. 1. 3. 6.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G
Group Ranking -> 6 2 7 5 1 2 2 Votes Against -> 27 23 35 24 13 23 23
( 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 = 0.2520
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.1696. 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 Ed 0.4505 Bob 0.3424 Burt 0.1429 Dick 0.0360 John -0.0371 Mike -0.4286
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 E is Ch. de Beaucastel 1990 --------------------------------------------------- 2. tied for 2nd place Wine G is Ch. de Beaucastel 1994 3. tied for 2nd place Wine F is Ch. de Beaucastel 1989 4. tied for 2nd place Wine B is Ch. de Beaucastel 1981 5. ........ 5th place Wine D is Ch. de Beaucastel 1988 6. ........ 6th place Wine A is Ch. de Beaucastel 1978 --------------------------------------------------- 7. ........ 7th place Wine C is Ch. de Beaucastel 1985 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 9.0714. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.1696 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 Bob Ed 1.000 -0.036 0.393 Mike -0.036 1.000 0.000 Bob 0.393 0.000 1.000 Burt 0.250 -0.500 0.536 John 0.679 -0.464 0.000 Dick 0.143 -0.607 0.321 Burt John Dick Ed 0.250 0.679 0.143 Mike -0.500 -0.464 -0.607 Bob 0.536 0.000 0.321 Burt 1.000 0.143 0.464 John 0.143 1.000 0.214 Dick 0.464 0.214 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.679 Ed and John Not significant 0.536 Bob and Burt Not significant 0.464 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.393 Ed and Bob Not significant 0.321 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.250 Ed and Burt Not significant 0.214 John and Dick Not significant 0.143 Burt and John Not significant 0.143 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.000 Bob and John Not significant 0.000 Mike and Bob Not significant -0.036 Ed and Mike Not significant -0.464 Mike and John Not significant -0.500 Mike and Burt Not significant -0.607 Mike and Dick Not significant
COMMENT: One of the tasters said that none of the wines had a distinctive bouquet. On the other hand, all of them tasted delicious. It is clear that the 1990 stood out heads over the other wines by a much more dramatic margin than is usual in our other tastings. It should be noted that the balance of acidity and fruit makes this an ideal wine for accompanying food. For the sake of another opinion, we quote the tasting notes from The Wine Doctor for the vintage 1990: "Chateau de Beaucastel Châteauneuf du Pape 1990: Similarly rich colour. Intense fruit, rich with aromas of roasted garrigue herbs, with nuances of ink and wet stones. A rich and hedonistic wine on entry, with an immediately apparent full and velvety texture. Despite its age this big and muscular wine still has a wealth of tannins, but with fine acidity and such rich fruit this wine will go the distance. Ripe fruits, with some aromatic, almost floral notes. A spicy, tannic finish, and some considerable length. This wine is still on the way up, and should be superb. 18.5+/20 (August 2001)" We should add that none of the tasters in the present tasting noticed any trace of brettanomyces, of which Châteauneuf du Pape from Beaucastel is often accused. As a final comment, we note that there have been two other all-Beaucastel tastings, namely Report 79 and Report 54. Reports 141 and 79 have only two overlapping vintages, namely 1990 and 1994, and they order them similarly, i.e., 1990 is better than 1994. Report 141 and 54 overlap in four vintages: 1985, 1989, 1990 and 1994. Of these, Report 141 ranks 1990 first, has 1989 and 1990 tied for second, and ranks 1985 last. Report 54 has 1989 and 1994 tied for first and also ranks 1985 last. On balance there seems to be a fair if not exceptional intertemporal consistency between these rankings.
Return to previous page