Report

WINETASTER ON 10/01/12 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 9 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N
Copyright (c) 1995-2012 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 Castelgiocondo ........ 7th place
Wine B is Donatella Cinelli Colombini Riserv ........ 8th place
Wine C is Castelgiocondo Riserva ........ 2nd place
Wine D is Donatella Cinelli Colombini tied for 4th place
Wine E is Conti Constanti Riserva ........ 6th place
Wine F is Casanova di Neri ........ 1st place
Wine G is Poggio Antico Riserva ........ 3rd place
Wine H is Poggio Antico ........ 9th place
Wine I is Conti Constanti tied for 4th place

The Judges's Rankings

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

Jerry 8. 1. 3. 4. 9. 2. 7. 6. 5.
Ed 7. 9. 1. 5. 2. 3. 8. 6. 4.
Alexa 1. 6. 3. 5. 2. 7. 4. 9. 8.
Burt 8. 9. 6. 5. 4. 1. 2. 7. 3.
Dean 1. 4. 3. 6. 8. 2. 7. 9. 5.
Mike 7. 8. 4. 5. 9. 2. 1. 6. 3.
Frank 2. 8. 1. 7. 3. 5. 4. 9. 6.
Dick 9. 8. 6. 2. 3. 4. 1. 7. 5.

Table of Votes Against

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

Group Ranking -> 7 8 2 4 6 1 3 9 4
Votes Against -> 43 53 27 39 40 26 34 59 39

( 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 = 0.2453

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation
is quite small, 0.0469. 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

Burt 0.4937
Frank 0.4833
Ed 0.3766
Mike 0.3682
Dean 0.2594
Dick 0.2437
Alexa 0.0833
Jerry 0.0756

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 Casanova di Neri
---------------------------------------------------
2. ........ 2nd place Wine C is Castelgiocondo Riserva
3. ........ 3rd place Wine G is Poggio Antico Riserva
4. tied for 4th place Wine D is Donatella Cinelli Colombini
5. tied for 4th place Wine I is Conti Constanti
6. ........ 6th place Wine E is Conti Constanti Riserva
7. ........ 7th place Wine A is Castelgiocondo
---------------------------------------------------
8. ........ 8th place Wine B is Donatella Cinelli Colombini Riserv
9. ........ 9th place Wine H is Poggio Antico

We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering.
The Friedman Chi-square value is 15.7000. The probability that this could
happen by chance is 0.0469

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

Jerry Ed Alexa

Jerry 1.000 -0.017 -0.467
Ed -0.017 1.000 0.117
Alexa -0.467 0.117 1.000
Burt -0.083 0.400 -0.167
Dean 0.400 0.050 0.300
Mike 0.233 0.083 -0.317
Frank -0.350 0.467 0.817
Dick -0.167 0.233 0.017

Burt Dean Mike

Jerry -0.083 0.400 0.233
Ed 0.400 0.050 0.083
Alexa -0.167 0.300 -0.317
Burt 1.000 -0.117 0.717
Dean -0.117 1.000 0.133
Mike 0.717 0.133 1.000
Frank 0.167 0.450 0.083
Dick 0.783 -0.450 0.483

Frank Dick

Jerry -0.350 -0.167
Ed 0.467 0.233
Alexa 0.817 0.017
Burt 0.167 0.783
Dean 0.450 -0.450
Mike 0.083 0.483
Frank 1.000 0.050
Dick 0.050 1.000

Pairwise correlations in descending order

0.817 Alexa and Frank Significantly positive
0.783 Burt and Dick Significantly positive
0.717 Burt and Mike Significantly positive
0.483 Mike and Dick Not significant
0.467 Ed and Frank Not significant
0.450 Dean and Frank Not significant
0.400 Ed and Burt Not significant
0.400 Jerry and Dean Not significant
0.300 Alexa and Dean Not significant
0.233 Jerry and Mike Not significant
0.233 Ed and Dick Not significant
0.167 Burt and Frank Not significant
0.133 Dean and Mike Not significant
0.117 Ed and Alexa Not significant
0.083 Ed and Mike Not significant
0.083 Mike and Frank Not significant
0.050 Frank and Dick Not significant
0.050 Ed and Dean Not significant
0.017 Alexa and Dick Not significant
-0.017 Jerry and Ed Not significant
-0.083 Jerry and Burt Not significant
-0.117 Burt and Dean Not significant
-0.167 Alexa and Burt Not significant
-0.167 Jerry and Dick Not significant
-0.317 Alexa and Mike Not significant
-0.350 Jerry and Frank Not significant
-0.450 Dean and Dick Not significant
-0.467 Jerry and Alexa Not significant

COMMENT:

This tasting is particularly interesting because it is a partial repeat of a
tasting of Brunello di Montalcino held on October 3, 2011.
Four of the wines tasted today were identical to four tasted on the earlier occasion.
On that occasion, we were in significant agreement among ourselves, and once again, we
found ourselves in substantial, statistically significant agreement, as witnessed by the
W coefficient of concordance. Moreover, the four wines that represent the overlap between
the two tastings, were ranked similarly in the two tastings: The Casanova di Neri was first
in both, the Castelgiocondo was second in today's and fourth in last October's tasting, while
the Conti Constanti was fourth today and the Poggio Antico ninth a year ago.

The wines were all very good and it is quite remarkable that in a group of wines with such
a strong family resemblance there was as much agreement in the group as we found. Nonetheless,
there were differences between the more traditional style Brunellos and the more modern
stylings which may explain the relatively slight taste differences within the group. As indicated
before, it is noteworthy that the Casanova di Neri which was No. 1 in this tasting, was also No. 1
in the previous tasting as well as the Brunello tied for the highest rating in the Wine Spectator
at 97 points.

A final point of interest is to examine whether there is a sign ificant differemce between the riserva
wines and the rest. The sum of the ranks for the four riserva wines divided by 4 is 38.5 and the sum
for the 5 non-riserva wines divided by 5 is 41.2; this is not a significant difference.

Return to previous page