WINETASTER ON 11/04/21 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 6 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2021 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 6
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Ch. Musar 2001 ........ 6th place Wine B is Ch. Musar 2003 ........ 3rd place Wine C is Ch. Musar 1997 ........ 4th place Wine D is Ch. Musar 1995 ........ 2nd place Wine E is Ch. Musar 1998 ........ 1st place Wine F is Ch. Musar 2002 ........ 5th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F Mike 6. 4. 3. 1. 2. 5. Orley 6. 2. 1. 3. 5. 4. Zaki 6. 1. 5. 4. 2. 3. Burt 4. 6. 5. 2. 1. 3. Frank 5. 3. 1. 4. 2. 6. Bob 6. 5. 3. 4. 1. 2. Ed 6. 2. 5. 4. 1. 3. Dick 2. 5. 6. 1. 3. 4.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F
Group Ranking -> 6 3 4 2 1 5 Votes Against -> 41 28 29 23 17 30
( 8 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 = 0.2857
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0435. 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 Mike 0.7714 Ed 0.5429 Bob 0.4857 Burt 0.4857 Zaki 0.3189 Dick 0.1160 Frank 0.0857 Orley -0.0290
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 E is Ch. Musar 1998 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine D is Ch. Musar 1995 3. ........ 3rd place Wine B is Ch. Musar 2003 4. ........ 4th place Wine C is Ch. Musar 1997 5. ........ 5th place Wine F is Ch. Musar 2002 --------------------------------------------------- 6. ........ 6th place Wine A is Ch. Musar 2001 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 11.4286. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0435 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 0.89 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.83 for significance at the 0.1 level Mike Orley Zaki Mike 1.000 0.371 0.257 Orley 0.371 1.000 0.200 Zaki 0.257 0.200 1.000 Burt 0.486 -0.543 0.029 Frank 0.543 0.543 0.143 Bob 0.429 0.029 0.371 Ed 0.371 0.029 0.943 Dick 0.200 -0.657 -0.257 Burt Frank Bob Mike 0.486 0.543 0.429 Orley -0.543 0.543 0.029 Zaki 0.029 0.143 0.371 Burt 1.000 -0.143 0.600 Frank -0.143 1.000 0.257 Bob 0.600 0.257 1.000 Ed 0.314 0.200 0.600 Dick 0.657 -0.486 -0.200 Ed Dick Mike 0.371 0.200 Orley 0.029 -0.657 Zaki 0.943 -0.257 Burt 0.314 0.657 Frank 0.200 -0.486 Bob 0.600 -0.200 Ed 1.000 -0.143 Dick -0.143 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.943 Zaki and Ed Significantly positive 0.657 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.600 Bob and Ed Not significant 0.600 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.543 Mike and Frank Not significant 0.543 Orley and Frank Not significant 0.486 Mike and Burt Not significant 0.429 Mike and Bob Not significant 0.371 Zaki and Bob Not significant 0.371 Mike and Ed Not significant 0.371 Mike and Orley Not significant 0.314 Burt and Ed Not significant 0.257 Frank and Bob Not significant 0.257 Mike and Zaki Not significant 0.200 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.200 Orley and Zaki Not significant 0.200 Frank and Ed Not significant 0.143 Zaki and Frank Not significant 0.029 Orley and Bob Not significant 0.029 Zaki and Burt Not significant 0.029 Orley and Ed Not significant -0.143 Burt and Frank Not significant -0.143 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.200 Bob and Dick Not significant -0.257 Zaki and Dick Not significant -0.486 Frank and Dick Not significant -0.543 Orley and Burt Not significant -0.657 Orley and Dick Not significant
COMMENT: This tasting matched a previous tasting of Musar in 2019. Overall, as in the previous tasting the sxlightly older wines were preferred. In both cases the 2001 came in last znd in this tasting it was compounded by the wine being oxidized. There were two classic Musar wines, E and D, the 98 anmd 95. These were very enjoyable and should be sought out. They are great value at only $75 each, which is tremendous value for mature wine. They require patience.
Return to previous p age