WINETASTER ON 01/08/19 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 6 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2019 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 6
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Chateau Musar 2002 ........ 5th place Wine B is Chateau Musar 2007 ........ 4th place Wine C is Chateau Musar 1997 ........ 6th place Wine D is Chateau Musar 1995 ........ 1st place Wine E is Chateau Musar 1994 ........ 3rd place Wine F is Chateau Musar 2001 ........ 2nd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F Bob 4. 5. 2. 1. 6. 3. Mike 6. 4. 3. 1. 5. 2. Stephen 5. 6. 3. 2. 4. 1. Zali 4. 5. 6. 2. 3. 1. Angus 1. 2. 6. 3. 4. 5. Thom 4. 3. 6. 5. 1. 2. Ed 4. 2. 6. 1. 3. 5. Dick 4. 3. 6. 1. 2. 5.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F
Group Ranking -> 5 4 6 1 3 2 Votes Against -> 32 30 38 16 28 24
( 8 is the best possible, 48 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 = 0.2500
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0752. 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 Zali 0.8407 Dick 0.6571 Ed 0.5508 Mike 0.5508 Stephen 0.4928 Thom 0.3189 Bob 0.2000 Angus 0.0286
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 Chateau Musar 1995 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine F is Chateau Musar 2001 3. ........ 3rd place Wine E is Chateau Musar 1994 4. ........ 4th place Wine B is Chateau Musar 2007 5. ........ 5th place Wine A is Chateau Musar 2002 --------------------------------------------------- 6. ........ 6th place Wine C is Chateau Musar 1997 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 10.0000. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0752 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 0.89 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.83 for significance at the 0.1 level Bob Mike Stephen Bob 1.000 0.771 0.657 Mike 0.771 1.000 0.771 Stephen 0.657 0.771 1.000 Zali 0.143 0.429 0.657 Angus -0.314 -0.486 -0.657 Thom -0.771 -0.314 -0.086 Ed -0.086 0.143 -0.257 Dick -0.143 0.086 -0.143 Zali Angus Thom Bob 0.143 -0.314 -0.771 Mike 0.429 -0.486 -0.314 Stephen 0.657 -0.657 -0.086 Zali 1.000 -0.029 0.486 Angus -0.029 1.000 0.086 Thom 0.486 0.086 1.000 Ed 0.257 0.600 0.143 Dick 0.371 0.486 0.257 Ed Dick Bob -0.086 -0.143 Mike 0.143 0.086 Stephen -0.257 -0.143 Zali 0.257 0.371 Angus 0.600 0.486 Thom 0.143 0.257 Ed 1.000 0.943 Dick 0.943 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.943 Ed and Dick Significantly positive 0.771 Mike and Stephen Not significant 0.771 Bob and Mike Not significant 0.657 Bob and Stephen Not significant 0.657 Stephen and Zali Not significant 0.600 Angus and Ed Not significant 0.486 Zali and Thom Not significant 0.486 Angus and Dick Not significant 0.429 Mike and Zali Not significant 0.371 Zali and Dick Not significant 0.257 Thom and Dick Not significant 0.257 Zali and Ed Not significant 0.143 Mike and Ed Not significant 0.143 Bob and Zali Not significant 0.143 Thom and Ed Not significant 0.086 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.086 Angus and Thom Not significant -0.029 Zali and Angus Not significant -0.086 Stephen and Thom Not significant -0.086 Bob and Ed Not significant -0.143 Stephen and Dick Not significant -0.143 Bob and Dick Not significant -0.257 Stephen and Ed Not significant -0.314 Bob and Angus Not significant -0.314 Mike and Thom Not significant -0.486 Mike and Angus Not significant -0.657 Stephen and Angus Not significant -0.771 Bob and Thom Not significant
COMMENT: Overall, the Musar wines present a marvellous wine experience and the wines were consistent over btwo decades. Despite this wide range of ages, the wines were homogeneous and did not show big differences that you might expect from such a big range. These wines are renowned for being long lived and this was borne out by our tasting. Given the pricepoint these wines continue to represent tremendous value. There appears to be substantial agreement on the excellence of the 1995 and on the relative inferiority of the 1997. There as no significant difference between the group of three older and three younger wines.
Return to previous page