WINETASTER ON 10/3/2017 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2000 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
A Tasting of 1996 Burgundies

FLIGHT 2: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is La Tâche DRC ........ 5th place Wine B is Gevrey Chambertin Les Corbeaux, Bachelet tied for 6th place Wine C is Gevrey Chambertin, Pansiot ........ 3rd place Wine D is Ruchottes Chambertin Gr.Cru, GC Rousseau ........ 1st place Wine E is Pommard 1er Clos Epenots, Courcel ........ 2nd place Wine F is Vosne Romanée 1er Les Hauts Maizières ........ 4th place Wine G is Vosne Romanée Les Suchots, Prieuré Roche ........ 8th place Wine H is Echezaux tied for 6th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Orley 6. 3. 4. 1. 2. 5. 7. 8. Jerry 7. 1. 2. 4. 6. 8. 3. 5. Ed 4. 5. 7. 1. 3. 2. 8. 6. Burt 2. 7. 5. 3. 6. 4. 8. 1. Frank 6. 5. 7. 3. 1. 4. 8. 2. Mike 5. 6. 2. 1. 3. 4. 8. 7. Zaki 6. 8. 5. 4. 2. 3. 1. 7. Dick 4. 6. 3. 2. 7. 8. 1. 5.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 5 6 3 1 2 4 8 6 Votes Against -> 40 41 35 19 30 38 44 41
( 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 = 0.1711

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.2134. 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 0.8675 Orley 0.5389 Ed 0.3425 Frank 0.0843 Zaki -0.1557 Burt -0.2994 Dick -0.3234 Jerry -0.4910

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 Ruchottes bChambertin --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine E is Pommard 1er Clos Epenots 3. ........ 3rd place Wine C is Gevrey Chambertin 4. ........ 4th place Wine F is Vosne Romanée 1er Les Hauts Maizie 5. ........ 5th place Wine A is La Tâche DRC 6. tied for 6th place Wine B is Gevrey Chambertin Les Corbeaux 7. tied for 6th place Wine H is Echezaux 8. ........ 8th place Wine G is Vosne Romanée Les Suchots We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 9.5833. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.2134 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 Jerry Ed Orley 1.000 0.190 0.619 Jerry 0.190 1.000 -0.548 Ed 0.619 -0.548 1.000 Burt -0.238 -0.524 0.357 Frank 0.333 -0.405 0.619 Mike 0.786 -0.095 0.619 Zaki 0.095 -0.286 0.071 Dick -0.119 0.476 -0.429 Burt Frank Mike Orley -0.238 0.333 0.786 Jerry -0.524 -0.405 -0.095 Ed 0.357 0.619 0.619 Burt 1.000 0.405 0.190 Frank 0.405 1.000 0.286 Mike 0.190 0.286 1.000 Zaki -0.429 -0.071 0.119 Dick -0.095 -0.571 -0.048 Zaki Dick Orley 0.095 -0.119 Jerry -0.286 0.476 Ed 0.071 -0.429 Burt -0.429 -0.095 Frank -0.071 -0.571 Mike 0.119 -0.048 Zaki 1.000 0.167 Dick 0.167 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.786 Orley and Mike Significantly positive 0.619 Ed and Frank Not significant 0.619 Ed and Mike Not significant 0.619 Orley and Ed Not significant 0.476 Jerry and Dick Not significant 0.405 Burt and Frank Not significant 0.357 Ed and Burt Not significant 0.333 Orley and Frank Not significant 0.286 Frank and Mike Not significant 0.190 Orley and Jerry Not significant 0.190 Burt and Mike Not significant 0.167 Zaki and Dick Not significant 0.119 Mike and Zaki Not significant 0.095 Orley and Zaki Not significant 0.071 Ed and Zaki Not significant -0.048 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.071 Frank and Zaki Not significant -0.095 Jerry and Mike Not significant -0.095 Burt and Dick Not significant -0.119 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.238 Orley and Burt Not significant -0.286 Jerry and Zaki Not significant -0.405 Jerry and Frank Not significant -0.429 Burt and Zaki Not significant -0.429 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.524 Jerry and Burt Not significant -0.548 Jerry and Ed Not significant -0.571 Frank and Dick Not significant




COMMENT: These wines were astonishingly good. They exhibited relatively small differences from grands crus to village wines. The Ruchottes Chambertin was ranked most highly by a substantial margin and, perhaps surprisingly, the La Tâche did not stand out, although it was clearly the most expensive wine of the lot. The tannins were mostly gone and they all had superb aromas. A tasting to remember!
Return to previous page