Report

WINETASTER ON 11/04/13 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 9 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=Y
Copyright (c) 1995-2013 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

A Tasting of 1993 Burgundies

FLIGHT 1:
Number of Judges = 8
Number of Wines = 9

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:

Wine A is Chambertin Clos de Bèze Rousseau ........ 8th place
Wine B is Gevrey Chambertin au Velle Mortet ........ 6th place
Wine C is Chambolle Musigny Roumier ........ 7th place
Wine D is Gevrey Chambertin Dugat ........ 4th place
Wine E is Clos de Vougeot Hudelot Noellat ........ 5th place
Wine F is Pommard Clos des Epenaux Armand ........ 3rd place
Wine G is Vosne Romanée Beaux Monts Rion ........ 1st place
Wine H is Vosne Romanée Haut Maizières Clave ........ 9th place
Wine I is Vosne Romanée Beaux Monts Jadots ........ 2nd place

The Judges's Rankings

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

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

Table of Votes Against

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

Group Ranking -> 8 6 7 4 5 3 1 9 2
Votes Against -> 49 44 48 40 41 35 21 54 28

( 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 = 0.2313

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation
is quite small, 0.0632. 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

Jerry 0.7448
Frank 0.6333
Bob 0.4184
Burt 0.3933
Mike 0.3833
Dick 0.1590
Alexa -0.1172
Ed -0.2500

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 Vosne Romanée Beaux Monts Rion
---------------------------------------------------
2. ........ 2nd place Wine I is Vosne Romanée Beaux Monts Jadots
3. ........ 3rd place Wine F is Pommard Clos des Epenaux Armand
4. ........ 4th place Wine D is Gevrey Chambertin Dugat
5. ........ 5th place Wine E is Clos de Vougeot Hudelot Noellat
6. ........ 6th place Wine B is Gevrey Chambertin au Velle Mortet
7. ........ 7th place Wine C is Chambolle Musigny Roumier
8. ........ 8th place Wine A is Chambertin Clos de Bèze Rousseau
---------------------------------------------------
9. ........ 9th place Wine H is Vosne Romanée Haut Maizières Clave

We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering.
The Friedman Chi-square value is 14.8000. The probability that this could
happen by chance is 0.0632

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

Ed Mike Jerry

Ed 1.000 -0.767 -0.383
Mike -0.767 1.000 0.750
Jerry -0.383 0.750 1.000
Bob 0.250 0.067 0.417
Alexa -0.033 -0.017 -0.017
Burt 0.050 0.400 0.433
Frank -0.550 0.833 0.967
Dick 0.467 -0.067 0.050

Bob Alexa Burt

Ed 0.250 -0.033 0.050
Mike 0.067 -0.017 0.400
Jerry 0.417 -0.017 0.433
Bob 1.000 -0.117 0.133
Alexa -0.117 1.000 -0.233
Burt 0.133 -0.233 1.000
Frank 0.283 0.033 0.300
Dick 0.467 -0.283 -0.050

Frank Dick

Ed -0.550 0.467
Mike 0.833 -0.067
Jerry 0.967 0.050
Bob 0.283 0.467
Alexa 0.033 -0.283
Burt 0.300 -0.050
Frank 1.000 0.017
Dick 0.017 1.000

Pairwise correlations in descending order

0.967 Jerry and Frank Significantly positive
0.833 Mike and Frank Significantly positive
0.750 Mike and Jerry Significantly positive
0.467 Ed and Dick Not significant
0.467 Bob and Dick Not significant
0.433 Jerry and Burt Not significant
0.417 Jerry and Bob Not significant
0.400 Mike and Burt Not significant
0.300 Burt and Frank Not significant
0.283 Bob and Frank Not significant
0.250 Ed and Bob Not significant
0.133 Bob and Burt Not significant
0.067 Mike and Bob Not significant
0.050 Ed and Burt Not significant
0.050 Jerry and Dick Not significant
0.033 Alexa and Frank Not significant
0.017 Frank and Dick Not significant
-0.017 Jerry and Alexa Not significant
-0.017 Mike and Alexa Not significant
-0.033 Ed and Alexa Not significant
-0.050 Burt and Dick Not significant
-0.067 Mike and Dick Not significant
-0.117 Bob and Alexa Not significant
-0.233 Alexa and Burt Not significant
-0.283 Alexa and Dick Not significant
-0.383 Ed and Jerry Not significant
-0.550 Ed and Frank Not significant
-0.767 Ed and Mike Significantly negative

COMMENT:

The wines were opened very early, an hour and a half before the tasting
and this helped a great deal. This is basically the 20th anniversary of
the vintage which has been quite controversial. The trade claimed it as a
fantastic Vin de Garde (keeping wine); meanwhile the trade was split
in its opnion with Mr. Parker due to tannins and rain during the harvest
concerning some questions about variability. Parker was cautious, but the Wine Spectator
said "Remember the extraordinary 1990 red Burgundies that took the wine world by storm? Now
the 1993 vintage is about to burst on the international scene with similar fanfare. Hands down, 1993
is the best red Burgundy year since 1990, and it might even equal the quality of 1988 and 1989,
two highly rated vintages.". The point was that rain had
interrupted the picking but earlier it had been a dry growing season.
The theory is that the growers did better than the negociants. This was
primarily a grower tasting. As it happens the negociant wine (Jadot)
performed on a par with the other wines. The 93 vintage comes through as a
superior vintage, contradicting the conventional wisdom that Burgundies
don't age well. It is interesting to note that the wine that finished last
was a Côte de Beaune.

Return to previous page