WINETASTER ON 04/19/22 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2003 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
2005 Grand Cru Burgundies
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Nuits St. Georges Leroy tied for 4th place Wine B is Bonnes Mares Vogue tied for 4th place Wine C is Clos de la Roche Vielles V Ponsot ........ 8th place Wine D is Grande Rue Monopole tied for 4th place Wine E is Chambertin Clos de Beze A.Rousseau ........ 2nd place Wine F is Clos de Tart ........ 7th place Wine G is Musigny Vielles Vignes Vogue ........ 3rd place Wine H is Chambertin A. Rousseau ........ 1st place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Burt 3. 5. 8. 2. 6. 7. 4. 1. Bob 5. 4. 6. 8. 1. 7. 3. 2. Ed 5. 1. 4. 2. 6. 8. 3. 7. Mike 8. 5. 6. 2. 3. 1. 4. 7. Zaki 6. 7. 8. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Angus 3. 7. 8. 5. 1. 2. 6. 4. Dick 2. 3. 5. 8. 4. 6. 7. 1.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 4 4 8 4 2 7 3 1 Votes Against -> 32 32 45 32 25 34 29 23
( 7 is the best possible, 56 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 = 0.1506
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.3903. 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 Bob 0.3976 Zaki 0.2994 Burt 0.1916 Angus 0.1429 Dick -0.0958 Mike -0.4048 Ed -0.6826
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 Chambertin A. Rousseau 2. ........ 2nd place Wine E is Chambertin Clos de Beze A. Roussea 3. ........ 3rd place Wine G is Musigny Vielles Vignes Vogue 4. tied for 4th place Wine B is Bonnes Mares Vogue 5. tied for 4th place Wine A is Nuits St. Georges Leroy 6. tied for 4th place Wine D is Grande Rue Monopole 7. ........ 7th place Wine F is Clos de Tart --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine C is Clos de la Roche Vielles V Ponsot We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 7.3810. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.3903 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 Burt Bob Ed Burt 1.000 0.143 0.119 Bob 0.143 1.000 -0.190 Ed 0.119 -0.190 1.000 Mike -0.310 -0.333 -0.048 Zaki 0.452 0.405 -0.524 Angus 0.095 0.238 -0.714 Dick 0.238 0.548 -0.310 Mike Zaki Angus Burt -0.310 0.452 0.095 Bob -0.333 0.405 0.238 Ed -0.048 -0.524 -0.714 Mike 1.000 0.214 0.286 Zaki 0.214 1.000 0.476 Angus 0.286 0.476 1.000 Dick -0.762 0.000 0.167 Dick Burt 0.238 Bob 0.548 Ed -0.310 Mike -0.762 Zaki 0.000 Angus 0.167 Dick 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.548 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.476 Zaki and Angus Not significant 0.452 Burt and Zaki Not significant 0.405 Bob and Zaki Not significant 0.286 Mike and Angus Not significant 0.238 Bob and Angus Not significant 0.238 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.214 Mike and Zaki Not significant 0.167 Angus and Dick Not significant 0.143 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.119 Burt and Ed Not significant 0.095 Burt and Angus Not significant 0.000 Zaki and Dick Not significant -0.048 Ed and Mike Not significant -0.190 Bob and Ed Not significant -0.310 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.310 Burt and Mike Not significant -0.333 Bob and Mike Not significant -0.524 Ed and Zaki Not significant -0.714 Ed and Angus Significantly negative -0.762 Mike and Dick Significantly negative
COMMENT: COMMENT: This tasting has been done twice before with exactly the same wines in 2012 and 2015. They are magnificent wines. It was hard to choose between the wines as borne out by the results. They are all brilliant clean and with a long life ahead. The best of Burgundy. The wines from Dom de Vogue did particularly well in all tastings. The tastings were reflective of the Cotes de Nuits representing 6 appellations. These wines had soft tannins and great fruit making them very approachable. We have to thank our host for his marvelous cellar and ability to provide this series of matched wines. We did as a bonne bouche an AF Gross Richebourg 2005 which was equally magnificent. This is the third time that we are tasting these wines. The first two occasions were April 2012 and Marchg 2015. The tastings were identical with one exception: in the b2015 tastin g the Nuits St. Georges was replaced by a Vosne Romanee Grand Cru. For this reason, the 2015 tasting cannot be strictly compared with the other two. The rank correlation between the first and the third tasting is 0.86 which shows a fair amount of temporal consistency in the grou0p-.
Return to previous page