WINETASTER ON 04/05/19 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 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 = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Sassicaia 2009 ........ 6th place Wine B is Sassicaia 2011 ........ 4th place Wine C is Sassicaia 1985 ........ 5th place Wine D is Sassicaia 2015 ........ 1st place Wine E is Sassicaia 2007 ........ 7th place Wine F is Sassicaia 2013 tied for 2nd place Wine G is Sassicaia 2008 tied for 2nd place Wine H is Sassicaia 1978 ........ 8th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Zaki 4. 5. 8. 3. 2. 6. 1. 7. Ed 6. 3. 5. 7. 8. 2. 1. 4. Mike 7. 5. 4. 6. 3. 1. 2. 8. Angus 3. 5. 4. 1. 8. 6. 2. 7. Jerry 4. 1. 7. 5. 6. 2. 3. 8. Bob 4. 3. 1. 2. 6. 5. 7. 8. Burt 2. 5. 3. 1. 4. 6. 7. 8. Dick 5. 4. 1. 3. 6. 2. 7. 8.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 6 4 5 1 7 2 2 8 Votes Against -> 35 31 33 28 43 30 30 58
( 8 is the best possible, 64 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 = 0.2619
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0405. 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 Angus 0.3571 Jerry 0.2143 Dick 0.1905 Bob 0.1190 Ed 0.0368 Mike -0.0482 Burt -0.1190 Zaki -0.2275
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 Sassicaia 2015 2. tied for 2nd place Wine G is Sassicaia 2008 3. tied for 2nd place Wine F is Sassicaia 2013 4. ........ 4th place Wine B is Sassicaia 2011 5. ........ 5th place Wine C is Sassicaia 1985 6. ........ 6th place Wine A is Sassicaia 2009 7. ........ 7th place Wine E is Sassicaia 2007 --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine H is Sassicaia 1978 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 14.6667. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0405 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 Zaki Ed Mike Zaki 1.000 -0.119 0.262 Ed -0.119 1.000 0.405 Mike 0.262 0.405 1.000 Angus 0.310 0.095 -0.095 Jerry 0.310 0.524 0.452 Bob -0.286 -0.310 -0.048 Burt 0.119 -0.714 -0.214 Dick -0.429 -0.071 0.310 Angus Jerry Bob Zaki 0.310 0.310 -0.286 Ed 0.095 0.524 -0.310 Mike -0.095 0.452 -0.048 Angus 1.000 0.238 0.452 Jerry 0.238 1.000 0.119 Bob 0.452 0.119 1.000 Burt 0.476 -0.048 0.786 Dick 0.238 0.214 0.857 Burt Dick Zaki 0.119 -0.429 Ed -0.714 -0.071 Mike -0.214 0.310 Angus 0.476 0.238 Jerry -0.048 0.214 Bob 0.786 0.857 Burt 1.000 0.548 Dick 0.548 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.857 Bob and Dick Significantly positive 0.786 Bob and Burt Significantly positive 0.548 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.524 Ed and Jerry Not significant 0.476 Angus and Burt Not significant 0.452 Mike and Jerry Not significant 0.452 Angus and Bob Not significant 0.405 Ed and Mike Not significant 0.310 Zaki and Jerry Not significant 0.310 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.310 Zaki and Angus Not significant 0.262 Zaki and Mike Not significant 0.238 Angus and Jerry Not significant 0.238 Angus and Dick Not significant 0.214 Jerry and Dick Not significant 0.119 Zaki and Burt Not significant 0.119 Jerry and Bob Not significant 0.095 Ed and Angus Not significant -0.048 Jerry and Burt Not significant -0.048 Mike and Bob Not significant -0.071 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.095 Mike and Angus Not significant -0.119 Zaki and Ed Not significant -0.214 Mike and Burt Not significant -0.286 Zaki and Bob Not significant -0.310 Ed and Bob Not significant -0.429 Zaki and Dick Not significant -0.714 Ed and Burt Significantly negative
COMMENT: Rare vertical tasting of eight vintage of Sassicaia, covering 37 years including the 1985---considere4d by some critics as one of the greatest wines made in Italy. The difficulty of the tasters to discern differences, with one exception, between these outstanding wines bore witness to the truth that verticals are the truest and most challenging ooof all tastings Wigth the exceptio n of the 1978, all the wines were ddelicious with several decades still in front of them...inclduing the 1985 which held its own well with its more4 useful siblings. Several tasters noted that the nose on these wines was quite restrained. Some tasters noted that the differences were surprisingly small, given the range in ages. Even the one that was unanimously last might have been affected by the difficulty of opening it. This wine was judged significantly not liked and wine G had interestingly a bimodal distribution of ranks
Return to previous page