WINETASTER ON 05/12/14 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2014 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
A Vertical Tasting of Produttori del Barbaresco, Regular Bottlings
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is 1982 ........ 4th place Wine B is 2006 ........ 5th place Wine C is 1998 tied for 6th place Wine D is 1997 ........ 2nd place Wine E is 1979 ........ 8th place Wine F is 1986 ........ 1st place Wine G is 1970 tied for 6th place Wine H is 1990 ........ 3rd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Zaki 5. 3. 6. 4. 8. 1. 7. 2. Mike 4. 6. 7. 3. 8. 1. 5. 2. Rich 3. 6. 7. 1. 8. 2. 4. 5. Ed 6. 7. 5. 4. 8. 1. 2. 3. Burt 4. 6. 5. 2. 8. 3. 7. 1. Bob 1. 2. 7. 3. 8. 5. 6. 4. Jerry 3. 5. 4. 6. 8. 1. 7. 2. Dick 3. 5. 4. 1. 8. 2. 7. 6.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 4 5 6 2 8 1 6 3 Votes Against -> 29 40 45 24 64 16 45 25
( 8 is the best possible, 64 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 = 0.6235
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0000. 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 Mike 0.9048 Zaki 0.8571 Burt 0.8333 Rich 0.6905 Jerry 0.6667 Dick 0.6190 Ed 0.5476 Bob 0.4820
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 1986 2. ........ 2nd place Wine D is 1997 --------------------------------------------------- 3. ........ 3rd place Wine H is 1990 4. ........ 4th place Wine A is 1982 5. ........ 5th place Wine B is 2006 6. tied for 6th place Wine C is 1998 7. tied for 6th place Wine G is Barbaresco 1970 --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine E is 1979 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 34.9167. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0000 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 0.74 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.64 for significance at the 0.1 level Zaki Mike Rich Zaki 1.000 0.810 0.500 Mike 0.810 1.000 0.810 Rich 0.500 0.810 1.000 Ed 0.476 0.762 0.619 Burt 0.762 0.833 0.619 Bob 0.524 0.452 0.548 Jerry 0.810 0.714 0.357 Dick 0.548 0.571 0.762 Ed Burt Bob Zaki 0.476 0.762 0.524 Mike 0.762 0.833 0.452 Rich 0.619 0.619 0.548 Ed 1.000 0.500 -0.048 Burt 0.500 1.000 0.476 Bob -0.048 0.476 1.000 Jerry 0.476 0.714 0.381 Dick 0.310 0.643 0.524 Jerry Dick Zaki 0.810 0.548 Mike 0.714 0.571 Rich 0.357 0.762 Ed 0.476 0.310 Burt 0.714 0.643 Bob 0.381 0.524 Jerry 1.000 0.500 Dick 0.500 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.833 Mike and Burt Significantly positive 0.810 Zaki and Mike Significantly positive 0.810 Mike and Rich Significantly positive 0.810 Zaki and Jerry Significantly positive 0.762 Zaki and Burt Significantly positive 0.762 Mike and Ed Significantly positive 0.762 Rich and Dick Significantly positive 0.714 Burt and Jerry Significantly positive 0.714 Mike and Jerry Significantly positive 0.643 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.619 Rich and Ed Not significant 0.619 Rich and Burt Not significant 0.571 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.548 Zaki and Dick Not significant 0.548 Rich and Bob Not significant 0.524 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.524 Zaki and Bob Not significant 0.500 Zaki and Rich Not significant 0.500 Ed and Burt Not significant 0.500 Jerry and Dick Not significant 0.476 Zaki and Ed Not significant 0.476 Ed and Jerry Not significant 0.476 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.452 Mike and Bob Not significant 0.381 Bob and Jerry Not significant 0.357 Rich and Jerry Not significant 0.310 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.048 Ed and Bob Not significant
COMMENT: It was an eye opening tasting of normale Barbaresco wines. It is worth noting the continuing quality of the producer over 36 years. In terms of the life left in the wines the group felt that the vintages of the 1980s still had lively fruit and several years of enjoyable drinking ahead of them. All of these wines were the result of a single vineyard or more being declassified and hence the total production being normale. This leads us to speculate that in poorer vintages this particular wine is a blend of these fine vineyards. Very exceptionally, the group was unanimous in voting fort one wine, the 1979 vintage as it least preferred wine . A question was raised concerning whether the wines from the 1980s will continue to drink well in the future. It is possible that in 2014 we had reached the sweet spot for drinking the better made vintages from the 1980s. As the statistics reveal, the degree of agreement in the group was exceptionally high, caused at least in part by the unanimity concerning the 1979 vintage, which had a pronounced sherry flavor. It is somewhat surprising that our overall rankings have a rank correlation of 0.872 with those of Parker, with whose rankings we tend, on the whole, to have lower correlations.
Return to previous page