WINETASTER ON 10/03/11 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 9 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2011 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
A tasting of 2001 Brunello di Montalcino
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 9
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Nardi ........ 9th place Wine B is Uccelliera ........ 8th place Wine C is Conti Constanti tied for 6th place Wine D is Salicutti ........ 5th place Wine E is Castelgiocondo ........ 4th place Wine F is Poggio Antico tied for 6th place Wine G is Casanova di Neri ........ 1st place Wine H is Il Poggione tied for 2nd place Wine I is Pieve Santa Restituta Rennina tied for 2nd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H I Orley 9. 7. 5. 8. 4. 6. 2. 3. 1. Mike 9. 8. 7. 4. 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. Burt 9. 8. 7. 3. 1. 5. 2. 6. 4. Richard 9. 4. 8. 5. 1. 7. 6. 2. 3. Jerry 9. 4. 3. 7. 8. 6. 2. 5. 1. Zaki 9. 8. 4. 3. 5. 6. 1. 2. 7. Ed 9. 6. 5. 3. 7. 2. 1. 4. 8. Dick 9. 3. 1. 5. 8. 6. 2. 7. 4.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H I
Group Ranking -> 9 8 6 5 4 6 1 2 2 Votes Against -> 72 48 40 38 35 40 19 34 34
( 8 is the best possible, 72 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 = 0.4245
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0007. 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 Zaki 0.5667 Burt 0.5188 Orley 0.5105 Mike 0.3264 Ed 0.2678 Jerry 0.1833 Richard 0.1345 Dick 0.0586
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 Casanova di Neri --------------------------------------------------- 2. tied for 2nd place Wine H is Il Poggione 3. tied for 2nd place Wine I is Pieve Santa Restituta Rennina 4. ........ 4th place Wine E is Castelgiocondo 5. ........ 5th place Wine D is Salicutti 6. tied for 6th place Wine F is Poggio Antico 7. tied for 6th place Wine C is Conti Constanti 8. ........ 8th place Wine B is Uccelliera --------------------------------------------------- 9. ........ 9th place Wine A is Nardi We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 27.1667. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0007 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 0.70 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.60 for significance at the 0.1 level Orley Mike Burt Orley 1.000 0.367 0.517 Mike 0.367 1.000 0.867 Burt 0.517 0.867 1.000 Richard 0.517 0.417 0.517 Jerry 0.717 -0.100 0.100 Zaki 0.450 0.533 0.567 Ed 0.150 0.550 0.383 Dick 0.317 -0.133 0.033 Richard Jerry Zaki Orley 0.517 0.717 0.450 Mike 0.417 -0.100 0.533 Burt 0.517 0.100 0.567 Richard 1.000 0.100 0.217 Jerry 0.100 1.000 0.267 Zaki 0.217 0.267 1.000 Ed -0.100 0.233 0.750 Dick -0.183 0.817 0.317 Ed Dick Orley 0.150 0.317 Mike 0.550 -0.133 Burt 0.383 0.033 Richard -0.100 -0.183 Jerry 0.233 0.817 Zaki 0.750 0.317 Ed 1.000 0.400 Dick 0.400 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.867 Mike and Burt Significantly positive 0.817 Jerry and Dick Significantly positive 0.750 Zaki and Ed Significantly positive 0.717 Orley and Jerry Significantly positive 0.567 Burt and Zaki Not significant 0.550 Mike and Ed Not significant 0.533 Mike and Zaki Not significant 0.517 Burt and Richard Not significant 0.517 Orley and Richard Not significant 0.517 Orley and Burt Not significant 0.450 Orley and Zaki Not significant 0.417 Mike and Richard Not significant 0.400 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.383 Burt and Ed Not significant 0.367 Orley and Mike Not significant 0.317 Zaki and Dick Not significant 0.317 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.267 Jerry and Zaki Not significant 0.233 Jerry and Ed Not significant 0.217 Richard and Zaki Not significant 0.150 Orley and Ed Not significant 0.100 Burt and Jerry Not significant 0.100 Richard and Jerry Not significant 0.033 Burt and Dick Not significant -0.100 Mike and Jerry Not significant -0.100 Richard and Ed Not significant -0.133 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.183 Richard and Dick Not significant
COMMENT: One wine, the Il Poggione, was corked by agreement of several people and was replaced with an identical uncorked bottle by our host. This is a rare example where a flawed wine could be replaced. Our host, who normally buys Bordeaux and Burgundies, explained that the wine world felt that Brunello has finally become grown up. He bought these wines with the regular cuvees and that we should drink them today, 10 years after the vintage, so that we could in a future tasting compare them to the reserves from the same producers. The wines were wonderful today and would be as good or better in the next 3-5 years.It is very rare that the group is in perfect agreement about any wine. The Nardi was ranked dead last by every person present. This wine was disliked for various reasons that are hard to summarize. But there was nearly as strong agreement on the excellence of the Casanova di Neri. This wine was noticeably more complex than its competitors.
Return to previous page