WINETASTER ON 10/05/21 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2021 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
A Tasting of Faiveley Premier Cru Burgundies Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is 2017 Chambolle Musigny Les Fuées ........ 2nd place Wine B is 2017 Gevrey Chambertin Les Cazetier tied for 3rd place Wine C is 2017 Volnay Fremiets tied for 3rd place Wine D is 2017 Nuits St. Georges Porets St.Georges ........ 6th place Wine E is 2014 Gevrey Chambertin Clos des Issarts ........ 8th place Wine F is 2014 Nuits St. Georges les Damodes ........ 1st place Wine G is 2013 Gevrey Chambertin Combes aux Moines ........ 7th place Wine H is 2017 Nuits St. Georges Prulier tied for 3rd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Bob 5. 7. 4. 1. 8. 6. 2. 3. Ed 6. 5. 1. 4. 7. 2. 3. 8. Burt 5. 4. 8. 7. 3. 1. 6. 2. Orley 2. 1. 7. 8. 5. 4. 6. 3. Frank 1. 6. 4. 2. 8. 5. 3. 7. Allan 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 7. 6. 8. Dick 6. 5. 3. 4. 7. 2. 8. 1. Mike 4. 1. 6. 7. 3. 5. 8. 2.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 2 3 3 6 8 1 7 3 Votes Against -> 33 34 34 35 44 32 42 34
( 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 = 0.0513
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.8963. 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 Dick 0.2275 Mike -0.2994 Frank -0.3114 Orley -0.4097 Bob -0.4286 Ed -0.4762 Burt -0.5988 Allan -0.6025
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 F is 2014 Nuits St. Georges les Damodes 2. ........ 2nd place Wine A is 2017 Chambolle Musigny Les Fuées 3. tied for 3rd place Wine C is 2017 Volnay Fremiets 4. tied for 3rd place Wine H is 2017 Nuits St. Georges Prulier 5. tied for 3rd place Wine B is 2017 Gevrey Chambertin Les Cazetiers 6. ........ 6th place Wine D is 2017 Nuits St. Georges Porets St. Georges 7. ........ 7th place Wine G is 2013 Gevrey Chambertin Combes aux Moines 8. ........ 8th place Wine E is 2014 Gevrey Chambertin Clos des Issarts We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 2.8750. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.8963 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 Ed Burt Bob 1.000 0.214 -0.524 Ed 0.214 1.000 -0.452 Burt -0.524 -0.452 1.000 Orley -0.571 -0.500 0.595 Frank 0.571 0.405 -0.619 Allan 0.024 0.310 -0.762 Dick 0.143 0.071 0.310 Mike -0.667 -0.667 0.595 Orley Frank Allan Bob -0.571 0.571 0.024 Ed -0.500 0.405 0.310 Burt 0.595 -0.619 -0.762 Orley 1.000 -0.262 -0.548 Frank -0.262 1.000 0.310 Allan -0.548 0.310 1.000 Dick 0.048 -0.214 -0.262 Mike 0.810 -0.643 -0.310 Dick Mike Bob 0.143 -0.667 Ed 0.071 -0.667 Burt 0.310 0.595 Orley 0.048 0.810 Frank -0.214 -0.643 Allan -0.262 -0.310 Dick 1.000 0.238 Mike 0.238 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.810 Orley and Mike Significantly positive 0.595 Burt and Mike Not significant 0.595 Burt and Orley Not significant 0.571 Bob and Frank Not significant 0.405 Ed and Frank Not significant 0.310 Frank and Allan Not significant 0.310 Ed and Allan Not significant 0.310 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.238 Dick and Mike Not significant 0.214 Bob and Ed Not significant 0.143 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.071 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.048 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.024 Bob and Allan Not significant -0.214 Frank and Dick Not significant -0.262 Orley and Frank Not significant -0.262 Allan and Dick Not significant -0.310 Allan and Mike Not significant -0.452 Ed and Burt Not significant -0.500 Ed and Orley Not significant -0.524 Bob and Burt Not significant -0.548 Orley and Allan Not significant -0.571 Bob and Orley Not significant -0.619 Burt and Frank Not significant -0.643 Frank and Mike Not significant -0.667 Ed and Mike Significantly negative -0.667 Bob and Mike Significantly negative -0.762 Burt and Allan Significantly negative
Comments: There was no big difference among these wines by vineyard and vintage. Wines had a house sty;le and were uniform;y delicious. With their characteristic acidity, we felt tghat they were perfect with food. Parker rating were also similar across the board. These wines are affordable in the context of Burgundy. This is the first in-person tasting post-COVID and it was a real pleasure seeing each other not on zoom or nsimilar arrangements. Long may we continue.
Return to previous page