WINETASTER ON 11/03/20 WITH 6 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2020 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
A Tasting of Côte Rôti: La Mouline, La Turque, La Landonne
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 6 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is 2005 La Mouline ........ 4th place Wine B is 2001 La Mouline ........ 6th place Wine C is 2005 La Landonne ........ 8th place Wine D is 2005 La Turque ........ 7th place Wine E is 2001 La Landonne ........ 5th place Wine F is 2000 La Mouline ........ 2nd place Wine G is 2001 La Turque ........ 3rd place Wine H is 2000 La Turque ........ 1st place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Bob 2. 4. 5. 6. 8. 7. 3. 1. Dick 4. 5. 7. 6. 8. 1. 2. 3. Mike 6. 2. 4. 5. 8. 1. 7. 3. Zaki 5. 8. 6. 4. 3. 1. 7. 2. Ed 5. 6. 8. 7. 3. 2. 4. 1. Burt 5. 8. 6. 7. 1. 4. 3. 2.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 4 6 8 7 5 2 3 1 Votes Against -> 27 33 36 35 31 16 26 12
( 6 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 = 0.3598
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0346. 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.
71 Burt 0.2275 Mike 0.0952 Bob 0.0120
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 H is 2000 La Turque 2. ........ 2nd place Wine F is 2000 La Mouline --------------------------------------------------- 3. ........ 3rd place Wine G is 2001 La Turque 4. ........ 4th place Wine A is 2005 La Mouline 5. ........ 5th place Wine E is 2001 La Landonne 6. ........ 6th place Wine B is 2001 La Mouline 7. ........ 7th place Wine D is 2005 La Turque --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine C is 2005 La Landonne We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 15.1111. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0346 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 Bob Dick Mike Bob 1.000 0.405 0.071 Dick 0.405 1.000 0.429 Mike 0.071 0.429 1.000 Zaki -0.286 0.214 0.190 Ed 0.119 0.548 0.095 Burt -0.024 0.143 -0.429 Zaki Ed Burt Bob -0.286 0.119 -0.024 Dick 0.214 0.548 0.143 Mike 0.190 0.095 -0.429 Zaki 1.000 0.667 0.548 Ed 0.667 1.000 0.786 Burt 0.548 0.786 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.786 Ed and Burt Significantly positive 0.667 Zaki and Ed Significantly positive 0.548 Dick and Ed Not significant 0.548 Zaki and Burt Not significant 0.429 Dick and Mike Not significant 0.405 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.214 Dick and Zaki Not significant 0.190 Mike and Zaki Not significant 0.143 Dick and Burt Not significant 0.119 Bob and Ed Not significant 0.095 Mike and Ed Not significant 0.071 Bob and Mike Not significant -0.024 Bob and Burt Not significant -0.286 Bob and Zaki Not significant -0.429 Mike and Burt Not significant
COMMENT: One taster had this to say: This was a spectacular tasting of the highly rated Guigal La La Cote Roties. The wines were mature, representing the 2000, 2001 and 2005 vintages. Overall each wine stood in its own right as delicious, with soft tannins where present. Despite this, there was a fairly uniform preference for the 2 representative wines of the 2000 vintage. One question was raised as to whether the 100 point 2005 wines would benefit from more time? Comparing the combined scores of the 01 versus 05 vintages there did not appear to be a significant difference. These wines are very collectible and can be reliably depended upon to be delicious if cellared, if you can afford them. In general we agreed that these were truly phenomenal wines, b ut in spite of their relative similarity, the taster were sufficiently a ble to distinguish among them to yield statistically significant results. The two top wines were the 2000 La Mouline an d the 2000 La Turque. While these were rate slightly lowerf by Parker than the 100 point 2005s (95 and 96), they drank better today than the younger wines. This may reflect the group's preference fvcor older wines or, more likely, the fact that these great wines really need a long time to mature.Return to previous page