WINETASTER ON 11/10/22 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2003 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Stag's Leap 2003 ........ 6th place Wine B is Amalthea 2008 ........ 7th place Wine C is Ch. Mouton Rothschild 2001 ........ 1st place Wine D is Ch. Lascombes 2009 ........ 8th place Wine E is Ch. Pichon Baron 2011 ........ 3rd place Wine F is Ch. Reignac, Balthus 2008 ........ 4th place Wine G is Oculus, Mission Hills 2012 ........ 5th place Wine H is Phelps, Insignia 2010 ........ 2nd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Orley 5. 4. 3. 6. 7. 2. 1. 8. Bob 8. 4. 1. 7. 3. 6. 5. 2. Burt 3. 4. 2. 7. 1. 5. 6. 8. Ed 4. 7. 5. 6. 1. 2. 8. 3. Mike 7. 8. 5. 1. 6. 4. 2. 3. Zaki 5. 7. 3. 6. 2. 1. 8. 4. Frank 4. 3. 6. 5. 7. 8. 1. 2. Dick 2. 3. 4. 8. 6. 7. 5. 1.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 6 7 1 8 3 4 5 2 Votes Against -> 38 40 29 46 33 35 36 31
( 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 = 0.0759
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.7506. 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 0.5422 Zaki 0.0479 Dick 0.0238 Ed 0.0000 Burt -0.1078 Orley -0.3735 Mike -0.3952 Frank -0.5476
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 C is Ch. Mouton Rothschild 2001 2. ........ 2nd place Wine H is Phelps, Insignia 2010 3. ........ 3rd place Wine E is Ch. Pichon Baron 2011 4. ........ 4th place Wine F is Ch. Reignac, Balthus 2008 5. ........ 5th place Wine G is Oculus, Mission Hills 2012 6. ........ 6th place Wine A is Stag's Leap 2003 7. ........ 7th place Wine B is Amalthea 2008 8. ........ 8th place Wine D is Ch. Lascombes 2009 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 4.2500. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.7506 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 Bob Burt Orley 1.000 -0.167 0.095 Bob -0.167 1.000 0.190 Burt 0.095 0.190 1.000 Ed -0.476 0.143 0.310 Mike 0.048 -0.095 -0.714 Zaki -0.190 0.262 0.381 Frank 0.000 0.024 -0.524 Dick -0.262 0.310 -0.024 Ed Mike Zaki Orley -0.476 0.048 -0.190 Bob 0.143 -0.095 0.262 Burt 0.310 -0.714 0.381 Ed 1.000 -0.190 0.905 Mike -0.190 1.000 -0.143 Zaki 0.905 -0.143 1.000 Frank -0.667 0.167 -0.833 Dick -0.048 -0.452 -0.190 Frank Dick Orley 0.000 -0.262 Bob 0.024 0.310 Burt -0.524 -0.024 Ed -0.667 -0.048 Mike 0.167 -0.452 Zaki -0.833 -0.190 Frank 1.000 0.571 Dick 0.571 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.905 Ed and Zaki Significantly positive 0.571 Frank and Dick Not significant 0.381 Burt and Zaki Not significant 0.310 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.310 Burt and Ed Not significant 0.262 Bob and Zaki Not significant 0.190 Bob and Burt Not significant 0.167 Mike and Frank Not significant 0.143 Bob and Ed Not significant 0.095 Orley and Burt Not significant 0.048 Orley and Mike Not significant 0.024 Bob and Frank Not significant 0.000 Orley and Frank Not significant -0.024 Burt and Dick Not significant -0.048 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.095 Bob and Mike Not significant -0.143 Mike and Zaki Not significant -0.167 Orley and Bob Not significant -0.190 Orley and Zaki Not significant -0.190 Ed and Mike Not significant -0.190 Zaki and Dick Not significant -0.262 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.452 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.476 Orley and Ed Not significant -0.524 Burt and Frank Not significant -0.667 Ed and Frank Significantly negative -0.714 Burt and Mike Significantly negative -0.833 Zaki and Frank Significantly negative
COMMENT: Overall, this was a heroic attempt to replicate the famous tasting of nthe judgment of Paris. The wines were expertly chosen to closely pair the new and old world wines, and while the Mouton numerically won the tasting, the statistical analysis shows there was no significan5t difference between the wines. This demonstrates the growing world of quality wines being produced around the world. What is of particular note is the performance of the Canadian Okanagan wine which is a growing influential wine area. The New Jersey wine held its nown in the company of some great wines. Its formula was basede on Lascombes and it did much better despite being a more recent year. Overall, there is no significant difference between the wines. The white wine served before the tasting deserves mention. The Stag's Leap SLV Chardonnay was delicious but was surpassed by the Bonneau du Martray 2006 Corton Charlemagne.
Return to previous page