WINETASTER ON 04/05/99 WITH 9 JUDGES AND 10 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-99 Richard E. Quandt


FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 9 Number of Wines = 10
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Federico Paternina Res.Espec. 1961 ........ 1st place Wine B is Rioja Alta Gran Res.Cosecha 1985 ........ 2nd place Wine C is Marques de Riscal Reserva 1995 ........ 3rd place Wine D is Marques de Murrieta 1975 ........ 6th place Wine E is Gran Conda Gran Reserva 1976 ........ 4th place Wine F is Marques de Murrieta 1980 ........ 9th place Wine G is Federico Paternina Gran Res. 1961 ........ 8th place Wine H is Herencia Remondo Cosecha 1987 ........ 10th place Wine I is Torre Albeniz Reserva 1994 ........ 5th place Wine J is Marques de Murrieta 1966 ........ 7th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H I J Bob 2. 8. 1. 4. 5. 9. 6. 7. 3. 10. Frank V. 1. 2. 3. 4. 10. 9. 5. 6. 7. 8. John 6. 1. 2. 5. 4. 3. 9. 10. 8. 7. Frank L. 2. 1. 8. 9. 5. 4. 6. 7. 10. 3. Ed 1. 4. 2. 9. 7. 10. 8. 6. 3. 5. Burt 2. 1. 8. 5. 4. 10. 3. 7. 6. 9. Orley 2. 3. 4. 1. 5. 6. 10. 8. 7. 9. Grant 4. 5. 6. 9. 2. 7. 8. 10. 1. 3. Dick 2. 1. 3. 5. 6. 10. 9. 8. 4. 7.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H I J
Group Ranking -> 1 2 3 6 4 9 8 10 5 7 Votes Against -> 22 26 37 51 48 68 64 69 49 61
( 9 is the best possible, 90 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 = 0.3793

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0003. 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 Dick 0.9152 Orley 0.6242 Ed 0.6201 Frank V. 0.5532 Bob 0.4909 Burt 0.4788 John 0.4182 Grant 0.2606 Frank L. 0.1337

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 A is Federico Paternina Reserva Especia 2. ........ 2nd place Wine B is La Rioja Alta Gran Reserva Cosecha --------------------------------------------------- 3. ........ 3rd place Wine C is Marques de Riscal Reserva 1995 4. ........ 4th place Wine E is Gran Conda Gran Reserva 1976 5. ........ 5th place Wine I is Torre Albeniz Reserva 1994 6. ........ 6th place Wine D is Marques de Murrieta 1975 7. ........ 7th place Wine J is Marques de Murrieta 1966 8. ........ 8th place Wine G is Fedirico Paternina Gran Reserva 19 --------------------------------------------------- 9. ........ 9th place Wine F is Marques de Murrieta 1980 10. ........ 10th place Wine H is Herenic Remondo Cosecha 1987 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 30.7212. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0003 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 0.65 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.56 for significance at the 0.1 level Bob Frank V. John Bob 1.000 0.467 0.055 Frank V. 0.467 1.000 0.188 John 0.055 0.188 1.000 Frank L. -0.491 0.164 0.345 Ed 0.527 0.552 0.067 Burt 0.273 0.564 0.067 Orley 0.479 0.539 0.636 Grant 0.139 -0.248 0.164 Dick 0.539 0.697 0.455 Frank L. Ed Burt Bob -0.491 0.527 0.273 Frank V. 0.164 0.552 0.564 John 0.345 0.067 0.067 Frank L. 1.000 0.127 0.309 Ed 0.127 1.000 0.261 Burt 0.309 0.261 1.000 Orley 0.091 0.212 0.370 Grant 0.176 0.491 0.103 Dick 0.152 0.770 0.552 Orley Grant Dick Bob 0.479 0.139 0.539 Frank V. 0.539 -0.248 0.697 John 0.636 0.164 0.455 Frank L. 0.091 0.176 0.152 Ed 0.212 0.491 0.770 Burt 0.370 0.103 0.552 Orley 1.000 -0.006 0.685 Grant -0.006 1.000 0.394 Dick 0.685 0.394 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.770 Ed and Dick Significantly positive 0.697 Frank V. and Dick Significantly positive 0.685 Orley and Dick Significantly positive 0.636 John and Orley Significantly positive 0.564 Frank V. and Burt Not significant 0.552 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.552 Frank V. and Ed Not significant 0.539 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.539 Frank V. and Orley Not significant 0.527 Bob and Ed Not significant 0.491 Ed and Grant Not significant 0.479 Bob and Orley Not significant 0.467 Bob and Frank V. Not significant 0.455 John and Dick Not significant 0.394 Grant and Dick Not significant 0.370 Burt and Orley Not significant 0.345 John and Frank L. Not significant 0.309 Frank L. and Burt Not significant 0.273 Bob and Burt Not significant 0.261 Ed and Burt Not significant 0.212 Ed and Orley Not significant 0.188 Frank V. and John Not significant 0.176 Frank L. and Grant Not significant 0.164 John and Grant Not significant 0.164 Frank V. and Frank L. Not significant 0.152 Frank L. and Dick Not significant 0.139 Bob and Grant Not significant 0.127 Frank L. and Ed Not significant 0.103 Burt and Grant Not significant 0.091 Frank L. and Orley Not significant 0.067 John and Burt Not significant 0.067 John and Ed Not significant 0.055 Bob and John Not significant -0.006 Orley and Grant Not significant -0.248 Frank V. and Grant Not significant -0.491 Bob and Frank L. Not significant




COMMENT: There was no flaw or oxidized wine in the tasting. All wines had good colors, no off smells, and they had good fruit. Ed says that he is extremely surprised by the difference the 1961 Paternina Reserva Especial and the Paternina Grand Reserva of the same year. One question this raises is whether this is bottle variation or actual quality difference. Both corks fell apart upon extraction, both were reasonably high shoul- der. Frank was more surprised that both 1961s showed up so well. Several people were surprised by the longevity of these wines. John notes that the third best wine is a 1995, which is unusual because Riojas have to age more. Ed further notes that these are not fat wines. Dick further notes that the statistical measures of correlation among the judges indicate absolutely exceptional agreement among the judges.
Return to previous page