WINETASTER ON 02/07/11 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2011 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 Echezeaux Faiveley 2001 tied for 3rd place Wine B is Richebourg Leroy 2001 ........ 2nd place Wine C is Clos de Vougeot Faiveley 2001 ........ 8th place Wine D is Mazis Chambertin Faiveley 2001 tied for 3rd place Wine E is Latricieres Chambertin Faiveley 20 ........ 7th place Wine F is Chambertin Clos de Beze Faiveley 2 tied for 5th place Wine G is Papapietro Perry Pinot Noir 2004 ........ 1st place Wine H is Clos des Corton Monopole Faiveley tied for 5th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Mike 7. 6. 8. 4. 2. 3. 1. 5. John 1. 8. 5. 6. 7. 4. 3. 2. Ed 4. 6. 5. 1. 3. 2. 8. 7. Burt 2. 3. 8. 6. 5. 7. 1. 4. Zacki 3. 1. 8. 2. 6. 5. 7. 4. Bob 3. 1. 5. 4. 8. 6. 2. 7. Orley 3. 2. 6. 4. 8. 5. 1. 7. Dick 8. 2. 6. 4. 5. 7. 1. 3.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 3 2 8 3 7 5 1 5 Votes Against -> 31 29 51 31 44 39 24 39
( 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 = 0.2046
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.1198. 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 Orley 0.8383 Bob 0.6946 Burt 0.6190 Zacki 0.4311 Dick 0.2048 Mike 0.1557 John -0.1205 Ed -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 G is Papapietro Perry Pinot Noir 2004 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine B is Richebourg Leroy 2001 3. tied for 3rd place Wine A is Echezeaux Faivelet 2001 4. tied for 3rd place Wine D is Mazis Chambertin Faivelet 2001 5. tied for 5th place Wine F is Chambertin Clos de Beze Faivelet 2 6. tied for 5th place Wine H is Clos des Corton Monopole Faivelet 7. ........ 7th place Wine E is Latricieres Chambertin Faivelet 20 --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine C is Clos de Vougeot Faivelet 2001 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 11.4583. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.1198 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 Mike John Ed Mike 1.000 -0.095 0.024 John -0.095 1.000 -0.286 Ed 0.024 -0.286 1.000 Burt 0.238 0.333 -0.595 Zacki -0.214 -0.190 0.238 Bob -0.190 -0.048 -0.333 Orley 0.048 0.095 -0.310 Dick 0.405 -0.286 -0.619 Burt Zacki Bob Mike 0.238 -0.214 -0.190 John 0.333 -0.190 -0.048 Ed -0.595 0.238 -0.333 Burt 1.000 0.262 0.548 Zacki 0.262 1.000 0.381 Bob 0.548 0.381 1.000 Orley 0.619 0.310 0.952 Dick 0.452 0.095 0.357 Orley Dick Mike 0.048 0.405 John 0.095 -0.286 Ed -0.310 -0.619 Burt 0.619 0.452 Zacki 0.310 0.095 Bob 0.952 0.357 Orley 1.000 0.357 Dick 0.357 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.952 Bob and Orley Significantly positive 0.619 Burt and Orley Not significant 0.548 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.452 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.405 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.381 Zacki and Bob Not significant 0.357 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.357 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.333 John and Burt Not significant 0.310 Zacki and Orley Not significant 0.262 Burt and Zacki Not significant 0.238 Mike and Burt Not significant 0.238 Ed and Zacki Not significant 0.095 Zacki and Dick Not significant 0.095 John and Orley Not significant 0.048 Mike and Orley Not significant 0.024 Mike and Ed Not significant -0.048 John and Bob Not significant -0.095 Mike and John Not significant -0.190 John and Zacki Not significant -0.190 Mike and Bob Not significant -0.214 Mike and Zacki Not significant -0.286 John and Ed Not significant -0.286 John and Dick Not significant -0.310 Ed and Orley Not significant -0.333 Ed and Bob Not significant -0.595 Ed and Burt Not significant -0.619 Ed and Dick Not significant
COMMENT: It has to be noted that the California wine was recognized by everybody as a ringer and some people loved it while others hated it (relatively speaking). Six of the wines come from individual vineyards of the same producer, and were noticeably similarly ranked. The overall correlation just misses being significant, and as in Report 130, overall the one American wine was the best liked. Most of the wines were drinking very well indeed after 10 years in the cellar and with underlying acidity were good food friendly wines. One person present who drinks Kistler's pinot noirs often, commented that the Papaietro has a similar character. One of the group who recalls the 2002 tasting of several years ago with clarity thought these wines were fully comparable today.
Return to previous page