WINETASTER ON 10/03/18 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2018 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 8

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:

Wine A is 2014 Occidental SMK Vinetard ........ 3rd place Wine B is 2012 Kistler ........ 1st place Wine C is 2016 Peter Michael Clos du Ciel tied for 5th place Wine D is 2014 Occidental Cuvee Catherine ........ 8th place Wine E is 2014 Peter Michael Clos du Ciel ........ 2nd place Wine F is 2014 Kistler tied for 5th place Wine G is 2016 Peter Michael Ma Danseuse ........ 7th place Wine H is 2015 Occidental Cuvee Eliza beth ........ 4th place

The Judges's Rankings

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

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

Group Ranking -> 3 1 5 8 2 5 7 4 Votes Against -> 26 20 35 41 25 35 39 31

( 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 = 0.1827

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.2561. 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 Bob 0.6347 Ed 0.4791 Orley 0.1687 Dick 0.1317 Mike 0.0240 Frank -0.0240 Burt -0.0476

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 2012 Kistler --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine E is 2014 Peter Michael Clos du Ciel 3. ........ 3rd place Wine A is 2014 Occidental SMK Vinetard 4. ........ 4th place Wine H is 2015 Occidental Cuvee Eliza beth 5. tied for 5th place Wine C is 2016 Peter Michael Clos du Ciel 6. tied for 5th place Wine F is 2014 Kistler 7. ........ 7th place Wine G is 2016 Peter Michael Ma Danseuse 8. ........ 8th place Wine D is 2014 Occidental Cuvee Catherine We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 8.9524. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.2561 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 Mike Orley 1.000 -0.238 0.000 Ed -0.238 1.000 0.119 Mike 0.000 0.119 1.000 Frank 0.000 0.143 -0.167 Burt 0.405 -0.190 -0.238 Bob 0.619 0.429 0.262 Dick -0.286 0.738 -0.333 Frank Burt Bob Orley 0.000 0.405 0.619 Ed 0.143 -0.190 0.429 Mike -0.167 -0.238 0.262 Frank 1.000 -0.286 -0.238 Burt -0.286 1.000 0.262 Bob -0.238 0.262 1.000 Dick -0.024 -0.119 0.119 Dick Orley -0.286 Ed 0.738 Mike -0.333 Frank -0.024 Burt -0.119 Bob 0.119 Dick 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.738 Ed and Dick Significantly positive 0.619 Orley and Bob Not significant 0.429 Ed and Bob Not significant 0.405 Orley and Burt Not significant 0.262 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.262 Mike and Bob Not significant 0.143 Ed and Frank Not significant 0.119 Ed and Mike Not significant 0.119 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.000 Orley and Mike Not significant 0.000 Orley and Frank Not significant -0.024 Frank and Dick Not significant -0.119 Burt and Dick Not significant -0.167 Mike and Frank Not significant -0.190 Ed and Burt Not significant -0.238 Mike and Burt Not significant -0.238 Orley and Ed Not significant -0.238 Frank and Bob Not significant -0.286 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.286 Frank and Burt Not significant -0.333 Mike and Dick Not significant

COMMENT: The wines were uniformly wonderful. These were great wines and it was a great tasting. The wines were relatively young with both producers having a full fruit, ready to drink style. Both producers have northern California coastal vineyards and are seen as top pinot noir producers that made this a very difficult tasting to separate the individualo wines. There was no obvious pattern among the vintages: the 2012 came first, but then the other wines followed in no discernible vintage order. Given the difficulty of distinguishing the wines, kudos to the 2012 Kistler for standing out in this tough company.

Return to previous page