WINETASTER ON 01/08/18 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2003 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
A Vertical Tasting of Opus 1, with One Bottle of Overture, Opus 1's Second Wine
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is 2006 ........ 2nd place Wine B is 2007 ........ 1st place Wine C is 1994 ........ 4th place Wine D is Overture tied for 6th place Wine E is 2014 ........ 5th place Wine F is 2009 ........ 3rd place Wine G is 2010 tied for 6th place Wine H is 1998 ........ 8th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Bob 1. 4. 6. 3. 2. 8. 7. 5. Ed 8. 5. 6. 3. 4. 1. 7. 2. Burt 6. 1. 2. 8. 5. 4. 3. 7. Zaki 2. 3. 8. 7. 4. 1. 5. 6. Mike 4. 2. 1. 3. 5. 8. 7. 6. Alan 2. 1. 6. 7. 3. 5. 4. 8. Dick 4. 7. 1. 5. 8. 2. 3. 6.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 2 1 4 6 5 3 6 8 Votes Against -> 27 23 30 36 31 29 36 40
( 7 is the best possible, 56 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 = 0.1040
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.6483. 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 Alan 0.5181 Zaki 0.2143 Burt 0.1928 Mike -0.0482 Bob -0.2275 Dick -0.3114 Ed -0.5476
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 B is 2007 2. ........ 2nd place Wine A is 2006 3. ........ 3rd place Wine F is 2009 4. ........ 4th place Wine C is 1994 5. ........ 5th place Wine E is 2014 6. tied for 6th place Wine D is Overture 7. tied for 6th place Wine G is 2010 8. ........ 8th place Wine H is 1998 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 5.0952. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.6483 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 Bob Ed Burt Bob 1.000 -0.333 -0.429 Ed -0.333 1.000 -0.333 Burt -0.429 -0.333 1.000 Zaki 0.048 0.048 0.143 Mike 0.429 -0.381 0.238 Alan 0.357 -0.548 0.524 Dick -0.619 -0.167 0.238 Zaki Mike Alan Bob 0.048 0.429 0.357 Ed 0.048 -0.381 -0.548 Burt 0.143 0.238 0.524 Zaki 1.000 -0.476 0.643 Mike -0.476 1.000 0.143 Alan 0.643 0.143 1.000 Dick -0.119 -0.071 -0.286 Dick Bob -0.619 Ed -0.167 Burt 0.238 Zaki -0.119 Mike -0.071 Alan -0.286 Dick 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.643 Zaki and Alan Not significant 0.524 Burt and Alan Not significant 0.429 Bob and Mike Not significant 0.357 Bob and Alan Not significant 0.238 Burt and Mike Not significant 0.238 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.143 Burt and Zaki Not significant 0.143 Mike and Alan Not significant 0.048 Bob and Zaki Not significant 0.048 Ed and Zaki Not significant -0.071 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.119 Zaki and Dick Not significant -0.167 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.286 Alan and Dick Not significant -0.333 Bob and Ed Not significant -0.333 Ed and Burt Not significant -0.381 Ed and Mike Not significant -0.429 Bob and Burt Not significant -0.476 Zaki and Mike Not significant -0.548 Ed and Alan Not significant -0.619 Bob and Dick Not significant
COMMENT: This is a wine made in a very consistent style. It appears to perform well beyond the usual vintage classifications. All the wines were delicious and ready to drink. It was noticeable that the second wine of Opus One, the Overture, was not noticeably different from its first wine peers. (Our estimate based on the date of purchase in 2014 assumed it to be blend of 2009, 10 and 11. Especial thanks to Mark Massad, an Opus aficionado, for contributing two of the wines we drank tonight.
Return to previous page