WINETASTER ON 02/03/20 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2020 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
A Tasting of 1999 Burgundies
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Comte de Vogüé Musigny ........ 3rd place Wine B is Henri Gouges Nuits-St-Georges ........ 6th place Wine C is A.F. Gros Vosne Romanee Aux Reas ........ 4th place Wine D is d'Angerville Volnay 1er cru Champans ........ 8th place Wine E is François Lamarche Vosne Romanée 1e ........ 7th place Wine F is Maume Gevrey Chambertin en Pallud ........ 5th place Wine G is Beaune Theurons Jadot ........ 1st place Wine H is Lamarche La Grande Rue grand cru ........ 2nd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Orley 3. 1. 6. 8. 7. 2. 4. 5. Justin 2. 5. 6. 4. 8. 7. 1. 3. Ed 3. 7. 1. 4. 6. 2. 5. 8. Bob 4. 5. 3. 8. 2. 6. 7. 1. Jerry 5. 7. 4. 8. 6. 3. 2. 1. Mike 5. 7. 1. 8. 4. 6. 2. 3. Angus 6. 4. 5. 8. 7. 2. 1. 3. Dick 3. 5. 7. 2. 8. 6. 1. 4.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 3 6 4 8 7 5 1 2 Votes Against -> 31 41 33 50 48 34 23 28
( 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 = 0.2366
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0662. 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 Jerry 0.7425 Angus 0.6826 Mike 0.4762 Justin 0.4431 Orley 0.2619 Dick 0.2515 Bob -0.0359 Ed -0.0599
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 Beaune Theurons Jadot --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine H is Lamarche La Grande Rue grand cru 3. ........ 3rd place Wine A is Comte de Vogüé Musigny 4. ........ 4th place Wine C is A.F. Gros Vosne Romanée Aux Reas 5. ........ 5th place Wine F is Maume Gevrey Chambertin en Pallud 6. ........ 6th place Wine B is Henri Gouges Nuits-St-Georges --------------------------------------------------- 7. ........ 7th place Wine E is François Lamarche Vosne Romanee 1e 8. ........ 8th place Wine D is d'Angerville Volnay 1er cru Champa We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 13.2500. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0662 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 Orley Justin Ed Orley 1.000 0.143 -0.048 Justin 0.143 1.000 -0.190 Ed -0.048 -0.190 1.000 Bob -0.095 -0.262 -0.310 Jerry 0.214 0.310 -0.048 Mike -0.167 0.143 0.119 Angus 0.619 0.286 -0.095 Dick 0.048 0.905 -0.143 Bob Jerry Mike Orley -0.095 0.214 -0.167 Justin -0.262 0.310 0.143 Ed -0.310 -0.048 0.119 Bob 1.000 0.333 0.500 Jerry 0.333 1.000 0.690 Mike 0.500 0.690 1.000 Angus -0.071 0.786 0.381 Dick -0.595 0.095 -0.167 Angus Dick Orley 0.619 0.048 Justin 0.286 0.905 Ed -0.095 -0.143 Bob -0.071 -0.595 Jerry 0.786 0.095 Mike 0.381 -0.167 Angus 1.000 0.190 Dick 0.190 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.905 Justin and Dick Significantly positive 0.786 Jerry and Angus Significantly positive 0.690 Jerry and Mike Significantly positive 0.619 Orley and Angus Not significant 0.500 Bob and Mike Not significant 0.381 Mike and Angus Not significant 0.333 Bob and Jerry Not significant 0.310 Justin and Jerry Not significant 0.286 Justin and Angus Not significant 0.214 Orley and Jerry Not significant 0.190 Angus and Dick Not significant 0.143 Justin and Mike Not significant 0.143 Orley and Justin Not significant 0.119 Ed and Mike Not significant 0.095 Jerry and Dick Not significant 0.048 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.048 Ed and Jerry Not significant -0.048 Orley and Ed Not significant -0.071 Bob and Angus Not significant -0.095 Orley and Bob Not significant -0.095 Ed and Angus Not significant -0.143 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.167 Orley and Mike Not significant -0.167 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.190 Justin and Ed Not significant -0.262 Justin and Bob Not significant -0.310 Ed and Bob Not significant -0.595 Bob and Dick Not significant
COMMENT: Overall, this was a tasting of a great vintage with a mixture of grand cru through village wines. Overall, the quality even after 20 years was high and the wines were all enjoyable. These wines at 21 years of age remain quite young. The Vilandrie was clearly flawed and there was considerable consensus that the wine was the worst in the tasting, although there may be good bottles in our host's cellar.
Return to previous page