WINETASTER ON 04-06-11 WITH 11 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, Copyright (c) 1995-2011
Number of judges = 11 Number of wines = 8
The wines and their identifying code designations
Wine name Code
Fritz Haag, Brauneberger Juffer 08 A Clemens Busch, Vom Roten Schiefer 09 B Van Volxem, Saar Riesling 09 C Wiemer, Riesling Dry 08 (Finger Lakes) D Lauer, Ayler Kupp Fass 6, 09 E Clemens Busch, Vom Roten Schiefer 08 F Wagner, Riesling Dry 09 (Finger Lakes) G Stein, Aldegunder Himmelreich Kab, 09 H
Rank Table for Judges
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Kose 8. 3. 4. 1. 5. 6. 7. 2. Barbara 3. 1. 7. 8. 2. 5. 4. 6. Paul 6. 1. 8. 4. 7. 2. 5. 3. Marti 8. 1. 2. 7. 4. 3. 6. 5. Tom 5. 3. 7. 4. 2. 1. 8. 6. Ingo 5. 2. 6. 1. 7. 4. 8. 3. Jutta 3. 5. 7. 1. 4. 2. 8. 6. Joanne 4. 6. 7. 2. 1. 3. 8. 5. Kim 4. 5. 8. 3. 2. 1. 7. 6. Stan 7. 6. 8. 3. 2. 1. 4. 5. Karl 4. 1. 7. 3. 2. 5. 8. 6.
Table of Votes Against
Wine -> A B C D E F G H Rank
1 0. 4. 0. 3. 1. 3. 0. 0. 2 0. 1. 1. 1. 5. 2. 0. 1. 3 2. 2. 0. 3. 0. 2. 0. 2. 4 3. 0. 1. 2. 2. 1. 2. 0. 5 2. 2. 0. 0. 1. 2. 1. 3. 6 1. 2. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 5. 7 1. 0. 5. 1. 2. 0. 2. 0. 8 2. 0. 3. 1. 0. 0. 5. 0.
Votes -> 57. 34. 71. 37. 38. 33. 73. 53.
We now measure the amount of correlation (W) among the judges: W = 1.0 => perfect correlation, W = 0 => no correlation
We also provide a probability measure that this correlation is due to chance
In this case the correlation is = 0.3707
Probability that correlation is due to chance = 0.0002
We compute the correlation of each taster with the average ranking of the oth- ers and with prices. 1.0 => perfect, 0 => none, -1.0 => total disagreement
Name of Person Correlation R Correlation Price
Tom 0.8571 0.7857 Karl 0.6905 0.5476 Kim 0.6667 0.7143 Jutta 0.5714 0.6190 Joanne 0.5238 0.5000 Stan 0.4286 0.2381 Paul 0.3856 0.4286 Ingo 0.3832 0.3095 Marti 0.0719 0.1190 Kose 0.0476 -0.2619 Barbara -0.0238 0.4524
Rank correlation between the average ranking of wines and the prices
Correlation = 0.6905 Critical value = 0.5240
Table of Aggregate Wine Quality
Wine Ranksum Significance Wine Ranksum Significance Alphabetic Order Ranksum Order
A 57.0 F 33.0 SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH QUALITY B 34.0 SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH QUALITY B 34.0 SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH QUALITY C 71.0 SIGNIFICANTLY LOW QUALITY D 37.0 D 37.0 E 38.0 E 38.0 H 53.0 F 33.0 SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH QUALITY A 57.0 G 73.0 SIGNIFICANTLY LOW QUALITY C 71.0 SIGNIFICANTLY LOW QUALITY H 53.0 G 73.0 SIGNIFICANTLY LOW QUALITY
Friedman Test: Chi-square = 28.5455 Probability = 0.0002
Identification of Wines Votes Against
Wine A is Fritz Haag, Brauneberger Juffer 08 57. Wine B is Clemens Busch, Vom Roten Schiefer 09 34. Wine C is Van Volxem, Saar Riesling 09 71. Wine D is Wiemer, Riesling Dry 08 (Finger Lakes) 37. Wine E is Lauer, Ayler Kupp Fass 6, 09 38. Wine F is Clemens Busch, Vom Roten Schiefer 08 33. Wine G is Wagner, Riesling Dry 09 (Finger Lakes) 73. Wine H is Stein, Aldegunder Himmelreich Kab, 09 53.
Pairwise Rank Correlations
Correlations must exceed in absolute value 0.74 for significance at the 0.0 level and must exceed 0.64 for significance at the 0.1 level
Kose Barbara Paul
Kose 1.000 -0.452 0.310 Barbara -0.452 1.000 0.167 Paul 0.310 0.167 1.000 Marti 0.238 0.238 0.238 Tom 0.071 0.333 0.405 Ingo 0.714 -0.262 0.667 Jutta 0.143 -0.119 0.262 Joanne 0.167 0.000 0.000 Kim -0.071 0.190 0.286 Stan 0.024 0.000 0.310 Karl 0.286 0.500 0.310
Marti Tom Ingo
Kose 0.238 0.071 0.714 Barbara 0.238 0.333 -0.262 Paul 0.238 0.405 0.667 Marti 1.000 0.286 0.048 Tom 0.286 1.000 0.357 Ingo 0.048 0.357 1.000 Jutta -0.286 0.738 0.571 Joanne -0.238 0.762 0.286 Kim -0.119 0.905 0.262 Stan -0.071 0.619 0.024 Karl 0.167 0.738 0.500
Jutta Joanne Kim
Kose 0.143 0.167 -0.071 Barbara -0.119 0.000 0.190 Paul 0.262 0.000 0.286 Marti -0.286 -0.238 -0.119 Tom 0.738 0.762 0.905 Ingo 0.571 0.286 0.262 Jutta 1.000 0.833 0.857 Joanne 0.833 1.000 0.881 Kim 0.857 0.881 1.000 Stan 0.476 0.619 0.762 Karl 0.595 0.619 0.595
Stan Karl
Kose 0.024 0.286 Barbara 0.000 0.500 Paul 0.310 0.310 Marti -0.071 0.167 Tom 0.619 0.738 Ingo 0.024 0.500 Jutta 0.476 0.595 Joanne 0.619 0.619 Kim 0.762 0.595 Stan 1.000 0.190 Karl 0.190 1.000
Pairwise correlations in descending order
0.905 Tom and Kim Significantly positive 0.881 Joanne and Kim Significantly positive 0.857 Jutta and Kim Significantly positive 0.833 Jutta and Joanne Significantly positive 0.762 Tom and Joanne Significantly positive 0.762 Kim and Stan Significantly positive 0.738 Tom and Jutta Significantly positive 0.738 Tom and Karl Significantly positive 0.714 Kose and Ingo Significantly positive 0.667 Paul and Ingo Significantly positive 0.619 Tom and Stan Not significant 0.619 Joanne and Stan Not significant 0.619 Joanne and Karl Not significant 0.595 Jutta and Karl Not significant 0.595 Kim and Karl Not significant 0.571 Ingo and Jutta Not significant 0.500 Barbara and Karl Not significant 0.500 Ingo and Karl Not significant 0.476 Jutta and Stan Not significant 0.405 Paul and Tom Not significant 0.357 Tom and Ingo Not significant 0.333 Barbara and Tom Not significant 0.310 Paul and Stan Not significant 0.310 Kose and Paul Not significant 0.310 Paul and Karl Not significant 0.286 Ingo and Joanne Not significant 0.286 Kose and Karl Not significant 0.286 Marti and Tom Not significant 0.286 Paul and Kim Not significant 0.262 Paul and Jutta Not significant 0.262 Ingo and Kim Not significant 0.238 Kose and Marti Not significant 0.238 Paul and Marti Not significant 0.238 Barbara and Marti Not significant 0.190 Stan and Karl Not significant 0.190 Barbara and Kim Not significant 0.167 Kose and Joanne Not significant 0.167 Barbara and Paul Not significant 0.167 Marti and Karl Not significant 0.143 Kose and Jutta Not significant 0.071 Kose and Tom Not significant 0.048 Marti and Ingo Not significant 0.024 Ingo and Stan Not significant 0.024 Kose and Stan Not significant 0.000 Barbara and Joanne Not significant 0.000 Paul and Joanne Not significant 0.000 Barbara and Stan Not significant -0.071 Kose and Kim Not significant -0.071 Marti and Stan Not significant -0.119 Barbara and Jutta Not significant -0.119 Marti and Kim Not significant -0.238 Marti and Joanne Not significant -0.262 Barbara and Ingo Not significant -0.286 Marti and Jutta Not significant -0.452 Kose and Barbara Not significant
Comments: It is amazing that the two significant winners where both Rieslings made by Clemens Busch, a small organic producer from Puenderich on the Middle Mosel. Even more amazing is that at two similar tastings many years ago both winner wines at both tastings were Clemens Busch wines as well (see Report 6 and Report 12).
Return to the previous page