WINETASTER ON 04/03/17 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2017 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

A Tasting of Georges Roumiers Bonnes Mares

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

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:

Wine A is 2007 tied for 2nd place Wine B is 2006 ........ 6th place Wine C is 2002 ........ 8th place Wine D is 2005 tied for 2nd place Wine E is 2009 ........ 1st place Wine F is 2012 ........ 7th place Wine G is 2004 ........ 5th place Wine H is 2008 ........ 4th place

The Judges's Rankings

Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Orley 2. 7. 8. 5. 3. 6. 4. 1. Ed 4. 5. 2. 1. 6. 8. 3. 7. Zaki 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. 3. 2. 1. Mike 7. 8. 4. 3. 2. 5. 1. 6. Burt 5. 6. 8. 3. 1. 4. 7. 2. Bob 4. 5. 7. 2. 3. 1. 8. 6. Jerry 3. 2. 1. 6. 8. 7. 4. 5. Dick 3. 2. 5. 4. 1. 7. 8. 6.

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

Group Ranking -> 2 6 8 2 1 7 5 4 Votes Against -> 32 40 42 32 30 41 37 34

( 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 = 0.0558

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.8732. 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 Orley 0.4910 Burt 0.3374 Bob -0.1446 Dick -0.1473 Mike -0.2892 Ed -0.4048 Zaki -0.4174 Jerry -0.7186

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 E is 2009 2. tied for 2nd place Wine D is 2005 3. tied for 2nd place Wine A is 2007 4. ........ 4th place Wine H is 2008 5. ........ 5th place Wine G is 2004 6. ........ 6th place Wine B is 2006 7. ........ 7th place Wine F is 2012 8. ........ 8th place Wine C is 2002 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 3.1250. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.8732 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 Orley Ed Zaki Orley 1.000 -0.310 0.524 Ed -0.310 1.000 -0.619 Zaki 0.524 -0.619 1.000 Mike 0.024 0.333 -0.167 Burt 0.619 -0.476 0.048 Bob 0.000 -0.310 -0.310 Jerry -0.405 0.452 -0.071 Dick 0.024 0.048 -0.571 Mike Burt Bob Orley 0.024 0.619 0.000 Ed 0.333 -0.476 -0.310 Zaki -0.167 0.048 -0.310 Mike 1.000 0.071 -0.119 Burt 0.071 1.000 0.595 Bob -0.119 0.595 1.000 Jerry -0.429 -0.833 -0.667 Dick -0.286 0.333 0.310 Jerry Dick Orley -0.405 0.024 Ed 0.452 0.048 Zaki -0.071 -0.571 Mike -0.429 -0.286 Burt -0.833 0.333 Bob -0.667 0.310 Jerry 1.000 -0.024 Dick -0.024 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.619 Orley and Burt Not significant 0.595 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.524 Orley and Zaki Not significant 0.452 Ed and Jerry Not significant 0.333 Ed and Mike Not significant 0.333 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.310 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.071 Mike and Burt Not significant 0.048 Zaki and Burt Not significant 0.048 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.024 Orley and Mike Not significant 0.024 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.000 Orley and Bob Not significant -0.024 Jerry and Dick Not significant -0.071 Zaki and Jerry Not significant -0.119 Mike and Bob Not significant -0.167 Zaki and Mike Not significant -0.286 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.310 Orley and Ed Not significant -0.310 Zaki and Bob Not significant -0.310 Ed and Bob Not significant -0.405 Orley and Jerry Not significant -0.429 Mike and Jerry Not significant -0.476 Ed and Burt Not significant -0.571 Zaki and Dick Not significant -0.619 Ed and Zaki Not significant -0.667 Bob and Jerry Significantly negative -0.833 Burt and Jerry Significantly negative

COMMENT: These were all very fine wines and were very difficult to distinguish because of their uniform high quality. The top and bottom price differed by a factor of roughly by 2. They were truly incredible wines. This is a ten-year span of wines that all drank very similarly. The Roumier expression of the eight Bonnes Mares cuvee were consistently elegant and somewhat reminiscent of Le Musigny.

Return to previous page