WINETASTER ON 11/03/14 WITH 9 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2014 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
A Vertical Tasting of Hermitage La Chapelle
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 9 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is 1999 tied for 4th place Wine B is 1994 ........ 2nd place Wine C is 1985 tied for 4th place Wine D is 1979 tied for 4th place Wine E is 2005 ........ 3rd place Wine F is 1990 ........ 7th place Wine G is 2000 ........ 1st place Wine H is 1996 ........ 8th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Alexa 3. 5. 2. 1. 7. 6. 4. 8. Zaki 3. 5. 7. 6. 4. 2. 1. 8. Frank 6. 7. 3. 8. 2. 1. 4. 5. Mike 2. 6. 5. 3. 4. 8. 1. 7. Bob 6. 3. 2. 5. 1. 8. 4. 7. Burt 5. 2. 1. 6. 3. 7. 4. 8. Orley 3. 1. 7. 2. 6. 8. 4. 5. Ed 4. 3. 6. 5. 1. 8. 2. 7. Dick 7. 2. 6. 3. 8. 5. 1. 4.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 4 2 4 4 3 7 1 8 Votes Against -> 39 34 39 39 36 53 25 59
( 9 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 = 0.2375
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0365. 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 0.5629 Mike 0.5238 Burt 0.5150 Bob 0.3571 Zaki 0.2530 Alexa 0.1437 Orley 0.0476 Dick 0.0359 Frank -0.5000
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 2000 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine B is 1994 3. ........ 3rd place Wine E is 2005 4. tied for 4th place Wine D is 1979 5. tied for 4th place Wine A is 1999 6. tied for 4th place Wine C is 1985 --------------------------------------------------- 7. ........ 7th place Wine F is 1990 8. ........ 8th place Wine H is 1996 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 14.9630. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0365 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 Alexa Zaki Frank Alexa 1.000 0.000 -0.452 Zaki 0.000 1.000 0.333 Frank -0.452 0.333 1.000 Mike 0.548 0.381 -0.333 Bob 0.167 -0.119 0.048 Burt 0.333 0.000 0.048 Orley 0.333 -0.071 -0.929 Ed 0.024 0.357 -0.143 Dick 0.143 0.095 -0.452 Mike Bob Burt Alexa 0.548 0.167 0.333 Zaki 0.381 -0.119 0.000 Frank -0.333 0.048 0.048 Mike 1.000 0.333 0.262 Bob 0.333 1.000 0.881 Burt 0.262 0.881 1.000 Orley 0.429 0.095 0.095 Ed 0.667 0.714 0.548 Dick 0.095 -0.167 -0.095 Orley Ed Dick Alexa 0.333 0.024 0.143 Zaki -0.071 0.357 0.095 Frank -0.929 -0.143 -0.452 Mike 0.429 0.667 0.095 Bob 0.095 0.714 -0.167 Burt 0.095 0.548 -0.095 Orley 1.000 0.429 0.500 Ed 0.429 1.000 0.024 Dick 0.500 0.024 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.881 Bob and Burt Significantly positive 0.714 Bob and Ed Significantly positive 0.667 Mike and Ed Significantly positive 0.548 Burt and Ed Not significant 0.548 Alexa and Mike Not significant 0.500 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.429 Mike and Orley Not significant 0.429 Orley and Ed Not significant 0.381 Zaki and Mike Not significant 0.357 Zaki and Ed Not significant 0.333 Alexa and Orley Not significant 0.333 Mike and Bob Not significant 0.333 Alexa and Burt Not significant 0.333 Zaki and Frank Not significant 0.262 Mike and Burt Not significant 0.167 Alexa and Bob Not significant 0.143 Alexa and Dick Not significant 0.095 Bob and Orley Not significant 0.095 Zaki and Dick Not significant 0.095 Burt and Orley Not significant 0.095 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.048 Frank and Burt Not significant 0.048 Frank and Bob Not significant 0.024 Alexa and Ed Not significant 0.024 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.000 Alexa and Zaki Not significant 0.000 Zaki and Burt Not significant -0.071 Zaki and Orley Not significant -0.095 Burt and Dick Not significant -0.119 Zaki and Bob Not significant -0.143 Frank and Ed Not significant -0.167 Bob and Dick Not significant -0.333 Frank and Mike Not significant -0.452 Frank and Dick Not significant -0.452 Alexa and Frank Not significant -0.929 Frank and Orley Significantly negative
COMMENT: Hermitage has very small production, some say La Chapelle is 5,000 cases a year. So the representation of vintages we sampled would together make the case production of a single Bordeaux chateau and despite protestations by many wine writers, these wines may not be as reliably long-lived as the Bordeaux chateaux to which they are compared. A comparison of our last gasting of these wines in year 2011 leads to the following con- clusions. The two tastings overlapped in only three wines: 1979,1985 and 1990. In this present tasting, all three of these wines were ranked less highly than at the earlier tasting, including the 1990, the only wine in the group to receive a rating of 100 from Robert Parker. The consensus of the group was that its overall reaction to this celebrated producer was one of disappointment. One taster however suggested that the absence of wines from 1978, 1989 and 1995, combined with at least two non-representative bottles (1990 and 1996) may have resulted in a skewed assessment. On the evidence, there as not much difference between the oldest and the youngest four wines: their rank sums were 165 and 169 respectively. In the opinion of some members, wine H suffered from wine making flaw. This flaw is the presence of mercaptans. In the opinion of sseveral people present, the 1990 sample was oxidized (the most famous wine in the group). These wines were served with home made foie gras, a perfect foil for any red wine. Our finishing wine provided by an English member of the group, was the 1978 Jaboulet Crozes Hermitage Thalabert. Robin Yapp sold this wine to our English member and it is quite fantastic today.
Return to previous page