WINETASTER ON 01/20/23 WITH 4 JUDGES AND 6 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2003 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 4 Number of Wines = 6
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Ch. Latour 1980 tied for 5th place Wine B is Ch. Latour 1970 tied for 5th place Wine C is Ch. Latour 1959 ........ 2nd place Wine D is Ch. Latour 1964 ........ 3rd place Wine E is Ch. Latour 1962 ........ 4th place Wine F is Ch. Latour 1990 ........ 1st place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F Dick 4. 5. 2. 3. 1. 6. Dean 3. 4. 2. 5. 6. 1. Angus 5. 4. 3. 2. 6. 1. Mike 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F
Group Ranking -> 5 5 2 3 4 1 Votes Against -> 18 18 11 13 15 9
( 4 is the best possible, 24 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 = 0.2429
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.4336. 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 Angus 0.4348 Mike 0.2319 Dean 0.0883 Dick -0.4058
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 Ch. Latour 1990 2. ........ 2nd place Wine C is Ch. Latour 1959 3. ........ 3rd place Wine D is Ch. Latour 1964 4. ........ 4th place Wine E is Ch. Latour 1962 5. tied for 5th place Wine A is Ch. Latour 1980 6. tied for 5th place Wine B is Ch. Latour 1970 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 4.8571. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.4336 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 Dick Dean Angus Dick 1.000 -0.600 -0.543 Dean -0.600 1.000 0.600 Angus -0.543 0.600 1.000 Mike 0.029 0.029 0.429 Mike Dick 0.029 Dean 0.029 Angus 0.429 Mike 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.600 Dean and Angus Not significant 0.429 Angus and Mike Not significant 0.029 Dean and Mike Not significant 0.029 Dick and Mike Not significant -0.543 Dick and Angus Not significant -0.600 Dick and Dean Not significant
COMMENT: These wines were all decanted 3.5 hours befgore the tasting. There was an enormous similarity among the wines, given they were between 60 years old to the youngest being 32 years old. The wines were spectacular. The 1990 waS preferred and has many years ahead of it. The 1959 was spectacular given its age, coming in a close second. The 1980, an off vintage, probably the wine of the vintage in its day, but was overshadowed by this company. It held its own with the much lauded 1970. On its own it would still be delightful and showing life. This shows the great predictability of Ch. Latour over a long period. None of the vintages was showing particular signs of age. What is noticeable is the the prices of these wines compare very favorably with and nin some cases are cheaper than wines that are currently trading (2005 to 2014). Given that Latour benefits from considerable aging one has to ask why are wine lovers not buying these fabulous vintage wines rather than young Latours that may need a furether 15+ years of patient storage? Overall, Latour is a benchmark Bordeaux that can be relied upon. If you find an odd vintage, buy it and you are unlikely to be disappointed.
Return to previous page