Report

A Vertical Tasting of Châteauneuf du Papes

WINETASTER ON 03/05/19 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 7 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 = 7

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:

Wine A is Vieux Donjon 2005 ........ 3rd place
Wine B is Vieux Donjon 2004 ........ 7th place
Wine C is Vieux Donjon 1998 ........ 2nd place
Wine D is Vieux Donjon 2010 ........ 1st place
Wine E is Vieux Donjon 2000 ........ 4th place
Wine F is Vieux Donjon 2001 ........ 6th place
Wine G is Mount Olivet 2007 ........ 5th place

The Judges's Rankings

Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G

Angus 2. 7. 4. 3. 5. 6. 1.
Zaki 5. 7. 4. 6. 2. 3. 1.
Orley 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 6. 7.
Ed 5. 7. 6. 3. 2. 4. 1.
Bob 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 7. 6.
Mike 6. 3. 2. 1. 5. 4. 7.
Peter 4. 5. 3. 1. 6. 2. 7.
Dick 2. 4. 3. 1. 7. 6. 5.

Table of Votes Against

Wine -> A B C D E F G

Group Ranking -> 3 7 2 1 4 6 5
Votes Against -> 31 42 28 18 32 38 35

( 8 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 = 0.1998

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation
is rather large, 0.1430. 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 Correlation Price

Orley 0.5946 0.5225
Bob 0.4286 0.1261
Dick 0.3964 0.5406
Peter 0.3929 0.1441
Mike 0.2500 0.0000
Angus 0.2500 0.7207
Ed 0.0901 0.0360
Zaki -0.1802 0.1261

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 Vieux Donjon 2010
---------------------------------------------------
2. ........ 2nd place Wine C is Vieux Donjon 1998
3. ........ 3rd place Wine A is Vieux Donjon 2005
4. ........ 4th place Wine E is Vieux Donjon 2000
5. ........ 5th place Wine G is Mount Olivet 2007
6. ........ 6th place Wine F is Vieux Donjon 2001
---------------------------------------------------
7. ........ 7th place Wine B is Vieux Donjon 2004

We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering.
The Friedman Chi-square value is 9.5893. The probability that this could
happen by chance is 0.1430

We now test whether the group ranking of wines is correlated with the
prices of the wines. The rank correlation between them is 0.7928. At the
10% level of significance this would have to exceed the critical value of
0.5710 to be significant.

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 0.79 for significance at the 0.05
level and must exceed 0.71 for significance at the 0.1 level

Angus Zaki Orley

Angus 1.000 0.357 -0.036
Zaki 0.357 1.000 -0.357
Orley -0.036 -0.357 1.000
Ed 0.536 0.750 -0.286
Bob 0.107 -0.429 0.607
Mike -0.429 -0.643 0.679
Peter -0.179 -0.500 0.464
Dick 0.393 -0.679 0.464

Ed Bob Mike

Angus 0.536 0.107 -0.429
Zaki 0.750 -0.429 -0.643
Orley -0.286 0.607 0.679
Ed 1.000 0.071 -0.464
Bob 0.071 1.000 0.321
Mike -0.464 0.321 1.000
Peter -0.321 0.143 0.750
Dick -0.357 0.429 0.464

Peter Dick

Angus -0.179 0.393
Zaki -0.500 -0.679
Orley 0.464 0.464
Ed -0.321 -0.357
Bob 0.143 0.429
Mike 0.750 0.464
Peter 1.000 0.536
Dick 0.536 1.000

Pairwise correlations in descending order

0.750 Zaki and Ed Significantly positive
0.750 Mike and Peter Significantly positive
0.679 Orley and Mike Not significant
0.607 Orley and Bob Not significant
0.536 Peter and Dick Not significant
0.536 Angus and Ed Not significant
0.464 Orley and Dick Not significant
0.464 Mike and Dick Not significant
0.464 Orley and Peter Not significant
0.429 Bob and Dick Not significant
0.393 Angus and Dick Not significant
0.357 Angus and Zaki Not significant
0.321 Bob and Mike Not significant
0.143 Bob and Peter Not significant
0.107 Angus and Bob Not significant
0.071 Ed and Bob Not significant
-0.036 Angus and Orley Not significant
-0.179 Angus and Peter Not significant
-0.286 Orley and Ed Not significant
-0.321 Ed and Peter Not significant
-0.357 Zaki and Orley Not significant
-0.357 Ed and Dick Not significant
-0.429 Zaki and Bob Not significant
-0.429 Angus and Mike Not significant
-0.464 Ed and Mike Not significant
-0.500 Zaki and Peter Not significant
-0.643 Zaki and Mike Not significant
-0.679 Zaki and Dick Not significant

COMMENT:

These wines were opulent and ripe without great vintage variation. Served with
ratatouille, we certainly felt the touch of Provence in the event. They were all
young and exuberant. The group felt that the price/quality ratio as corroborated
by the high (95+) Parker scores, present unique value given the current price
range of $65-$130. Oew taster commented on the food-friendly character of these wines.
Reactions to the winning and youngest (2010) vintage supported the accuracy
og Jen Dunnock's description in the Wine Advocate as "rock star stuff."

We note that one wine, the Vieux Donjon 2010, was significantly
liked by the tasters and one, the Vieux Donjon 2004 was sign ificantly disliked.
Wine G, the Mont Olivet, had curious bimodal ratings: three tasters thought
it was the best of the wines and three thought it was the worst. Since we had
price information, we could determine the (rank) correlation between the prices and
the rankings of the individual tasters: three tasters had a rank correlation
in excess of 0.5, with the rest of the tasters' ranks being largely
uncorrelated with the prices.

Return to previous page