WINETASTER ON 03/09/23 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 6 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2003 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 6
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Ch. Pichon Longueville 1996 ........ 5th place Wine B is Ch. Palmer 1998 ........ 2nd place Wine C is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1995 ........ 6th place Wine D is Ch. La Mission Haut Brion 1995 ........ 4th place Wine E is Ch. Palmer 1997 ........ 1st place Wine F is Ch. La Mission Haut Brion 1996 ........ 3rd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F Mike 6. 4. 3. 1. 2. 5. Ed 6. 3. 4. 2. 1. 5. Orley 2. 1. 4. 6. 5. 3. Bob 4. 5. 6. 3. 1. 2. Frank 3. 2. 4. 6. 1. 5. Zaki 6. 5. 4. 2. 3. 1. Dick 1. 2. 5. 6. 3. 4.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F
Group Ranking -> 5 2 6 4 1 3 Votes Against -> 28 22 30 26 16 25
( 7 is the best possible, 42 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 = 0.1440
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.4109. 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 0.5885 Ed 0.3714 Frank 0.3339 Mike -0.0857 Dick -0.2029 Zaki -0.2899 Orley -0.4928
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. Palmer 1997 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine B is Ch. Palmer 1998 3. ........ 3rd place Wine F is Ch. La Mission Haut Brion 1996 4. ........ 4th place Wine D is Ch. La Mission Haut Brion 1995 5. ........ 5th place Wine A is Ch. Pichon Longueville 1996 6. ........ 6th place Wine C is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1995 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 5.0408. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.4109 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 Ed Orley Mike 1.000 0.886 -0.829 Ed 0.886 1.000 -0.600 Orley -0.829 -0.600 1.000 Bob 0.200 0.371 -0.429 Frank -0.143 0.257 0.371 Zaki 0.429 0.314 -0.600 Dick -0.714 -0.371 0.771 Bob Frank Zaki Mike 0.200 -0.143 0.429 Ed 0.371 0.257 0.314 Orley -0.429 0.371 -0.600 Bob 1.000 0.086 0.600 Frank 0.086 1.000 -0.543 Zaki 0.600 -0.543 1.000 Dick -0.029 0.714 -0.714 Dick Mike -0.714 Ed -0.371 Orley 0.771 Bob -0.029 Frank 0.714 Zaki -0.714 Dick 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.886 Mike and Ed Significantly positive 0.771 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.714 Frank and Dick Not significant 0.600 Bob and Zaki Not significant 0.429 Mike and Zaki Not significant 0.371 Ed and Bob Not significant 0.371 Orley and Frank Not significant 0.314 Ed and Zaki Not significant 0.257 Ed and Frank Not significant 0.200 Mike and Bob Not significant 0.086 Bob and Frank Not significant -0.029 Bob and Dick Not significant -0.143 Mike and Frank Not significant -0.371 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.429 Orley and Bob Not significant -0.543 Frank and Zaki Not significant -0.600 Orley and Zaki Not significant -0.600 Ed and Orley Not significant -0.714 Zaki and Dick Not significant -0.714 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.829 Mike and Orley Not significant
COMMENT: These wines represented a cross section of the top Bordeaux left bank between the years 95 to 98. Ovberall, it demonstrated the very high quality of the top Bordeaux produce.Even more dramatic was the performance of the top wine, Palmer 1997, which was seen as one of the poorer vintages in the decade by some. The Margaux wines performed very strongly and they outperformed what were seen as stronger vintages. It reminds us once again that Bordeaux provides great pleasure even in the slightly lesser vintages. These are very drinkable wines, very attractive and can be enjoyed now, at their peak. After the official wine tasting we had some French pastries such as madelaines, accompanied by two different vintages of Alvear Pedro Ximenez, which were astonishingly good.
Return to previous page