WINETASTER ON 08/01/00 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2000 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
A Tasting of Pinot Noirs from a Variety of Sources, 1999-2016
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Ken Wright Cellars 2012 Bryce Vineyard Ribbon Ridge ........ 8th place Wine B is Montebruno 2009 Cuvee Una Ribbon Ridge Oregom ........ 6th place Wine C is Rhys 2015 Bearwallow Ribbon Ridge Ore ........ 2nd place Wine D is Pernand Vergeless 1999 1er Cru Les Fichots, Dom. Rossignol ........ 4th place Wine E is Calvert Felton Road 2012 Cent. Otago, NZ ........ 5th place Wine F is Spätburgunder 2014 Freidrich Becker Pfalz ........ 7th place Wine G is Three Sticks 2016 Cuvee Eva Marie Sonoma ........ 1st place Wine H is Ojai Wineyard 2013 Kick On Ranch, Santa Barbara ........ 3rd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Thom 4. 7. 5. 6. 1. 8. 2. 3. Orley 8. 7. 4. 3. 5. 6. 1. 2. Zaki 5. 6. 1. 2. 8. 7. 3. 4. Mike 7. 8. 4. 6. 1. 2. 5. 3. Burt 7. 5. 6. 4. 8. 2. 1. 3. Frank 6. 5. 1. 8. 3. 4. 2. 7. Bob 7. 3. 4. 1. 2. 8. 5. 6. Dick 5. 1. 3. 4. 8. 7. 6. 2.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 8 6 2 4 5 7 1 3 Votes Against -> 49 42 28 34 36 44 25 30
( 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 = 0.1838
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.1726. 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 Orley 0.8555 Zaki 0.4524 Thom 0.3253 Bob 0.1677 Burt 0.1078 Frank 0.0120 Mike -0.0599 Dick -0.1437
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 G is Three Sticks 2016 2. ........ 2nd place Wine C is Rhys 2015 3. ........ 3rd place Wine H is Ojai Wineyard 2013 4. ........ 4th place Wine D is Pernand Vergeless 1999 5. ........ 5th place Wine E is Calvert 2012 6. ........ 6th place Wine B is Montebruno 2009 7. ........ 7th place Wine F is Spätburgunder 2014 --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine A is Ken Wright Cellars 2012 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 10.2917. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.1726 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 Thom Orley Zaki Thom 1.000 0.429 -0.024 Orley 0.429 1.000 0.548 Zaki -0.024 0.548 1.000 Mike 0.333 0.286 -0.333 Burt -0.238 0.571 0.238 Frank 0.238 0.095 0.024 Bob 0.167 0.214 0.190 Dick -0.333 0.024 0.452 Mike Burt Frank Thom 0.333 -0.238 0.238 Orley 0.286 0.571 0.095 Zaki -0.333 0.238 0.024 Mike 1.000 0.024 0.333 Burt 0.024 1.000 -0.048 Frank 0.333 -0.048 1.000 Bob -0.143 -0.357 -0.071 Dick -0.595 0.048 -0.333 Bob Dick Thom 0.167 -0.333 Orley 0.214 0.024 Zaki 0.190 0.452 Mike -0.143 -0.595 Burt -0.357 0.048 Frank -0.071 -0.333 Bob 1.000 0.143 Dick 0.143 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.571 Orley and Burt Not significant 0.548 Orley and Zaki Not significant 0.452 Zaki and Dick Not significant 0.429 Thom and Orley Not significant 0.333 Mike and Frank Not significant 0.333 Thom and Mike Not significant 0.286 Orley and Mike Not significant 0.238 Thom and Frank Not significant 0.238 Zaki and Burt Not significant 0.214 Orley and Bob Not significant 0.190 Zaki and Bob Not significant 0.167 Thom and Bob Not significant 0.143 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.095 Orley and Frank Not significant 0.048 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.024 Mike and Burt Not significant 0.024 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.024 Zaki and Frank Not significant -0.024 Thom and Zaki Not significant -0.048 Burt and Frank Not significant -0.071 Frank and Bob Not significant -0.143 Mike and Bob Not significant -0.238 Thom and Burt Not significant -0.333 Thom and Dick Not significant -0.333 Frank and Dick Not significant -0.333 Zaki and Mike Not significant -0.357 Burt and Bob Not significant -0.595 Mike and Dick Not significant
COMMENT: This was a most interesting tasting of pinoit noirs assorted from a wide variety of sources. It is interesting that the tasters seem to have preferred the California Pinot Noirs to the others.
Return to previous page