WINETASTER ON 12/04/18 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 5 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2018 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 5
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Marimar 1993 ........ 5th place Wine B is Marimar 1994 ........ 4th place Wine C is Marimar 1995 tied for 1st place Wine D is Marimar 1997 ........ 3rd place Wine E is Marimar 1998 tied for 1st place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E Burt 5. 3. 1. 2. 4. Ed 4. 3. 5. 1. 2. Zaki 1. 5. 2. 3. 4. Orley 5. 3. 2. 4. 1. Larry 4. 5. 1. 3. 2. Bob 5. 4. 1. 3. 2. Mike 4. 1. 3. 5. 2. Dick 5. 2. 3. 4. 1.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E
Group Ranking -> 5 4 1 3 1 Votes Against -> 33 26 18 25 18
( 8 is the best possible, 40 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 = 0.2469

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0953. 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 0.8721 Orley 0.8000 Larry 0.6000 Dick 0.5000 Burt 0.3591 Mike 0.1000 Ed -0.3000 Zaki -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. tied for 1st place Wine C is Marimar 1995 2. tied for 1st place Wine E is Marimar 1998 3. ........ 3rd place Wine D is Marimar 1997 4. ........ 4th place Wine B is Marimar 1994 --------------------------------------------------- 5. ........ 5th place Wine A is Marimar 1993 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 7.9000. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0953 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 1.00 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.90 for significance at the 0.1 level Burt Ed Zaki Burt 1.000 -0.100 -0.100 Ed -0.100 1.000 -0.500 Zaki -0.100 -0.500 1.000 Orley 0.300 0.000 -0.500 Larry 0.500 -0.200 0.300 Bob 0.700 -0.100 -0.100 Mike -0.100 -0.200 -0.700 Dick 0.100 0.200 -0.800 Orley Larry Bob Burt 0.300 0.500 0.700 Ed 0.000 -0.200 -0.100 Zaki -0.500 0.300 -0.100 Orley 1.000 0.600 0.800 Larry 0.600 1.000 0.900 Bob 0.800 0.900 1.000 Mike 0.600 -0.200 0.100 Dick 0.900 0.200 0.500 Mike Dick Burt -0.100 0.100 Ed -0.200 0.200 Zaki -0.700 -0.800 Orley 0.600 0.900 Larry -0.200 0.200 Bob 0.100 0.500 Mike 1.000 0.800 Dick 0.800 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.900 Orley and Dick Significantly positive 0.900 Larry and Bob Significantly positive 0.800 Orley and Bob Not significant 0.800 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.700 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.600 Orley and Larry Not significant 0.600 Orley and Mike Not significant 0.500 Burt and Larry Not significant 0.500 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.300 Burt and Orley Not significant 0.300 Zaki and Larry Not significant 0.200 Larry and Dick Not significant 0.200 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.100 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.100 Bob and Mike Not significant 0.000 Ed and Orley Not significant -0.100 Burt and Zaki Not significant -0.100 Burt and Ed Not significant -0.100 Zaki and Bob Not significant -0.100 Ed and Bob Not significant -0.100 Burt and Mike Not significant -0.200 Ed and Larry Not significant -0.200 Larry and Mike Not significant -0.200 Ed and Mike Not significant -0.500 Ed and Zaki Not significant -0.500 Zaki and Orley Not significant -0.700 Zaki and Mike Not significant -0.800 Zaki and Dick Not significant

COMMENT: All the wines we taste today come from the Russian River Valley in Sonoma, California, and are from the Marimar Estate. The proprietor and founder, Marimar Torres, has made wines in Sonoma for several decades, and today we taste some examples of chardonnay (2008 and perhaps 2000) and pinot noir with bottle age (1993-1997) The Estate is located north of Sebastopol in Green Valley (the wines are entitled to this appellation, as well as the Russian River and Sonoma Coast appellations). Marimar is one of the first in what is now a distinguished group of women making wines in California. Many of the Marimar Estate staff are women also—and with any luck Marimar’s daughter, Cristina (Princeton ’05), will continue that tradition. These 25 year old wines were all excellent, and an extremely pleasant surprise. The only pinot noir wines expected to age so well, it was suggested by one person, are those from the DRC. Indeed, one person suggested it would be fascinating to compare them in a blind tasting. It was noted that it was a strictly European style wine with low yields and greater concentration of flavors. There was a fairly surprising degree of agreement within the group. But the two wines that were least liked were the two oldest.
Return to previous page