WINETASTER ON 03/04/14 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 9 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2014 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 9

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:

Wine A is Clos de Tart 2003 ........ 6th place Wine B is Bonnes Mares 2002 (Moine Hudelot) tied for 8th place Wine C is Bonnes Mares 1999 (Laurent) ........ 4th place Wine D is Bonnes Mares 2003 (Bouchard) ........ 1st place Wine E is Clos des Lambreys 2003 ........ 3rd place Wine F is Clos de Tart 1999 tied for 8th place Wine G is Clos de Tart 2002 ........ 7th place Wine H is Clos des Lambreys 2002 ........ 5th place Wine I is Clos des Lambreys 1999 ........ 2nd place

The Judges's Rankings

Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H I Alexa 8. 5. 6. 3. 1. 4. 9. 7. 2. Burt 5. 9. 3. 2. 6. 7. 8. 1. 4. Bob 7. 2. 3. 5. 4. 9. 1. 8. 6. Mike 3. 8. 9. 1. 4. 5. 7. 6. 2. Frank 3. 7. 5. 4. 8. 9. 1. 6. 2. Ed 5. 8. 2. 1. 3. 7. 9. 4. 6. Dick 6. 9. 1. 3. 2. 7. 8. 4. 5.

Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H I

Group Ranking -> 6 8 4 1 3 8 7 5 2 Votes Against -> 37 48 29 19 28 48 43 36 27

( 7 is the best possible, 63 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 = 0.2762

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0507. 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 Ed 0.7448 Dick 0.7167 Burt 0.5272 Alexa 0.3598 Mike 0.3333 Frank -0.1000 Bob -0.2167

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 D is Bonnes Mares 2003 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine I is Clos des Lambreys 1999 3. ........ 3rd place Wine E is Clos des Lambreys 2003 4. ........ 4th place Wine C is Bonnes Mares 1999 5. ........ 5th place Wine H is Clos des Lambreys 2002 6. ........ 6th place Wine A is Clos de Tart 2003 7. ........ 7th place Wine G is Clos de Tart 2002 --------------------------------------------------- 8. tied for 8th place Wine B is Bonnes Mares 2002 9. tied for 8th place Wine F is Clos de Tart 1999 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 15.4667. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0507 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 Alexa Burt Bob Alexa 1.000 0.083 -0.150 Burt 0.083 1.000 -0.433 Bob -0.150 -0.433 1.000 Mike 0.483 0.333 -0.467 Frank -0.417 0.150 0.317 Ed 0.367 0.783 -0.183 Dick 0.383 0.733 -0.100 Mike Frank Ed Alexa 0.483 -0.417 0.367 Burt 0.333 0.150 0.783 Bob -0.467 0.317 -0.183 Mike 1.000 0.217 0.317 Frank 0.217 1.000 -0.133 Ed 0.317 -0.133 1.000 Dick 0.167 -0.100 0.917 Dick Alexa 0.383 Burt 0.733 Bob -0.100 Mike 0.167 Frank -0.100 Ed 0.917 Dick 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.917 Ed and Dick Significantly positive 0.783 Burt and Ed Significantly positive 0.733 Burt and Dick Significantly positive 0.483 Alexa and Mike Not significant 0.383 Alexa and Dick Not significant 0.367 Alexa and Ed Not significant 0.333 Burt and Mike Not significant 0.317 Mike and Ed Not significant 0.317 Bob and Frank Not significant 0.217 Mike and Frank Not significant 0.167 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.150 Burt and Frank Not significant 0.083 Alexa and Burt Not significant -0.100 Bob and Dick Not significant -0.100 Frank and Dick Not significant -0.133 Frank and Ed Not significant -0.150 Alexa and Bob Not significant -0.183 Bob and Ed Not significant -0.417 Alexa and Frank Not significant -0.433 Burt and Bob Not significant -0.467 Bob and Mike Not significant

COMMENT: We thought it would be interesting to have a tasting of wines from three adjacent vineyards in Burgundy for three matched years. So, what we have is Bonnes Mares, Clos de Tart and Clos des Lambreys for 1999, 2002 and 2003. Clos de Tart is a single owner vineyard, hence it is designated as "Monopole." Clos des Lambreys is almost single owner, but just misses because a small portion is owned by Domaine Taupenot-Merme. Bonnes Mares had many owners. Clos de Tart and Clos des Lambreys are in the commune of Morey Saint Denis; Bonnes Mares is situated mostly in Chambolle Musigny, with a small part in Morey Saint Denis. It would have been nice if all three bottles of Bonnes Mares had come from a single owner, but that was beyond the host's powers. The actual Bonnes Mares were Laurent (1999), Moine Hudelot (2002) and Bouchard (2003). We anticipated that all wines would be good, and that was indeed the case. One person remarked that, taken alone, each of these wines would be quite fantastic.In spite of that there was a surprising amount of agreement in the group, with the probability that the degree of agreement could have arisen by chance only a hair over 5%. An interesting point to note is that the disagreement among the tasters was worst for the 2002 Clos de Tart, which was ranked first by two tasters and worst or next to worst by four. Also interesting is the fact that the very best wine is by a negociant (Bouchard). We were surprised by how badly Clos de Tart did agaist the other wines and performing the significance test that it is worse than the other six wines yields a test statistic of 1.29, marginally significant at the 0.05 level. Testing the hypothesis that 2003 is significantly better than the aggregate of the other wines (being mindful of the fact that these two tests cannot be performed validly on the same set of data) yields a test statistic of 1.37, which is highly significant. The wines aged beautifully and we surmised that they can be aged for 25 years without bad results. Given the stylistic and differences, it is hard to draw distinctions among them.

Return to previous page