WINETASTER ON 01/06/14 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 6 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2014 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
A Tasting of Loire Reds and New Jersey Cabernet Franc Wines for 2010
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 6
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Chinon Joguet ........ 4th place Wine B is Silver Decoy (now Working Dog) ........ 3rd place Wine C is Palmaris Outer Coastal Plan Tomasello Res. ........ 1st place Wine D is Bourgueil Breton ........ 6th place Wine E is Saumur Champigny Chateau de Huran - Vatan ........ 5th place Wine F is Bellview Outer Coastal Plain ........ 2nd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F Orley 4. 1. 2. 5. 6. 3. Burt 3. 1. 2. 4. 6. 5. Zaki 4. 3. 1. 6. 5. 2. Mike 1. 3. 4. 6. 2. 5. Dick 5. 2. 1. 6. 3. 4. Ed 2. 6. 3. 5. 4. 1. Larry 6. 4. 3. 5. 2. 1. Bob 4. 6. 1. 2. 5. 3.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F
Group Ranking -> 4 3 1 6 5 2 Votes Against -> 29 26 17 39 33 24
( 8 is the best possible, 48 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 = 0.2571
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0675. 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 1.0000 Orley 0.6957 Dick 0.6377 Burt 0.4286 Ed 0.1429 Larry 0.1160 Bob 0.0857 Mike -0.0286
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 C is Palmaris Outer Coastal Plan Tomasello res. --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine F is Bellview Outer Coastal Plain 3. ........ 3rd place Wine B is Silver Decoy (now Working Dog) 4. ........ 4th place Wine A is Chinon Joguet 5. ........ 5th place Wine E is Saumur Champigny Chateau de Huran - Vatan --------------------------------------------------- 6. ........ 6th place Wine D is Bourgueil Breton We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 10.2857. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0675 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 0.89 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.83 for significance at the 0.1 level Orley Burt Zaki Orley 1.000 0.829 0.771 Burt 0.829 1.000 0.429 Zaki 0.771 0.429 1.000 Mike -0.086 0.086 -0.029 Dick 0.600 0.429 0.714 Ed -0.086 -0.371 0.429 Larry 0.029 -0.486 0.429 Bob -0.029 -0.029 0.257 Mike Dick Ed Orley -0.086 0.600 -0.086 Burt 0.086 0.429 -0.371 Zaki -0.029 0.714 0.429 Mike 1.000 0.200 0.086 Dick 0.200 1.000 -0.143 Ed 0.086 -0.143 1.000 Larry -0.257 0.429 0.314 Bob -0.600 -0.086 0.371 Larry Bob Orley 0.029 -0.029 Burt -0.486 -0.029 Zaki 0.429 0.257 Mike -0.257 -0.600 Dick 0.429 -0.086 Ed 0.314 0.371 Larry 1.000 0.029 Bob 0.029 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.829 Orley and Burt Not significant 0.771 Orley and Zaki Not significant 0.714 Zaki and Dick Not significant 0.600 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.429 Zaki and Larry Not significant 0.429 Zaki and Ed Not significant 0.429 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.429 Dick and Larry Not significant 0.429 Burt and Zaki Not significant 0.371 Ed and Bob Not significant 0.314 Ed and Larry Not significant 0.257 Zaki and Bob Not significant 0.200 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.086 Mike and Ed Not significant 0.086 Burt and Mike Not significant 0.029 Larry and Bob Not significant 0.029 Orley and Larry Not significant -0.029 Zaki and Mike Not significant -0.029 Orley and Bob Not significant -0.029 Burt and Bob Not significant -0.086 Orley and Ed Not significant -0.086 Dick and Bob Not significant -0.086 Orley and Mike Not significant -0.143 Dick and Ed Not significant -0.257 Mike and Larry Not significant -0.371 Burt and Ed Not significant -0.486 Burt and Larry Not significant -0.600 Mike and Bob Not significant
COMMENT: Cabernet Franc seems to do well in New Jersey, and some of us have wondered how these wines compare to the red wines of Loire, which are made from cabernet franc (usually easier to ripen and lighter than cabernet sauvignon). The 2010 vintage in New Jersey was exceptional, a hot and dry summer. In the Loire the views are more mixed about the vintage. Parker rates it 88, a little above average among the last 10 vintages, while Wine Spectator expected it to be outstanding. The new Jersey wines presented themselves very well and they clearly won the tasting. (The rank sums for the Loire wines are 101 and for the NJ wines 67.) Three of the eight tasters correctly identified the NJ wines. The weather was exceptionally good that year in NJ (2010) but weather differences may account for some of the results. In one taster's experience the wines from the Loire have an unripe green character which it turns out is considered a defect.
Return to previous page