Identification of the Wine The Judges' Overall Ranking:
Wine A is 2016 Pichon Baron ........ 1st place
Wine H is 2012 Oculus ........ 2nd place
Wine C is 2012 Reignac ........ 3rd place
Wine D is 2012 Stag's Leap ........ 4th place
Wine G is 2009 Shafer ........ 5th place
Wine E is 2012 Palmer ........ 6th place
Wine B is 2004 Chateau Montelena ........ 7th place
Wine F is 1999 Burton ........ 8th place
The Judges' Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Burt 3 5 4 6 2 8 7 1
Orley 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 6
Ed 2 7 4 1 5 8 3 6
Dick 1 3 7 2 6 8 4 5
Frank 3 8 4 5 2 7 6 1
Mike 5 7 3 6 8 4 2 1
Zaki 2 3 4 7 6 8 5 1
Alan 7 8 4 3 5 2 1 6
Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 1 7 3 4 6 8 5 2
Votes Against -> 24 43 33 34 39 53 35 27
(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 = 0.2180
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0939. Most analysts would say that since this probability is less than 0.1, the judges' preferences appear to be 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
Judge Spearman's Rho
Zaki 0.5952
Frank 0.5123
Ed 0.4762
Burt 0.4671
Dick 0.3095
Mike 0.1905
Orley 0.1557
Alan -0.3353
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 A is 2016 Pichon Baron
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ........ 2nd place Wine H is 2012 Oculus
3. ........ 3rd place Wine C is 2012 Reignac
4. ........ 4th place Wine D is 2012 Stag's Leap
5. ........ 5th place Wine G is 2009 Shafer
6. ........ 6th place Wine E is 2012 Palmer
7. ........ 7th place Wine B is 2004 Chateau Montelena
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. ........ 8th place Wine F is 1999 Burton
We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-Square value is 12.208. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.094.
We now undertake a more detailed examination of the pair-wise rank correlations 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 0.697 for significance at the 0.05 level, and must exceed 0.619 for significance at the 0.10 level.
Correlation Array for the tasting is:
Burt Orley Ed Dick Frank Mike Zaki Alan
Burt 1.000 0.381 0.048 0.119 0.857 -0.024 0.690 -0.667
Orley 0.381 1.000 0.381 0.619 0.071 -0.429 0.500 -0.738
Ed 0.048 0.381 1.000 0.643 0.262 -0.024 0.024 0.167
Dick 0.119 0.619 0.643 1.000 0.000 -0.238 0.381 -0.405
Frank 0.857 0.071 0.262 0.000 1.000 0.190 0.429 -0.238
Mike -0.024 -0.429 -0.024 -0.238 0.190 1.000 0.333 0.357
Zaki 0.690 0.500 0.024 0.381 0.429 0.333 1.000 -0.714
Alan -0.667 -0.738 0.167 -0.405 -0.238 0.357 -0.714 1.000
Pairwise correlations in descending order
0.857 Burt and Frank Significantly positive
0.690 Burt and Zaki Significantly positive
0.643 Ed and Dick Significantly positive
0.619 Orley and Dick Not significant
0.500 Orley and Zaki Not significant
0.429 Frank and Zaki Not significant
0.381 Burt and Orley Not significant
0.381 Orley and Ed Not significant
0.381 Dick and Zaki Not significant
0.357 Mike and Alan Not significant
0.333 Mike and Zaki Not significant
0.262 Ed and Frank Not significant
0.190 Frank and Mike Not significant
0.167 Ed and Alan Not significant
0.119 Burt and Dick Not significant
0.071 Orley and Frank Not significant
0.048 Burt and Ed Not significant
0.024 Ed and Zaki Not significant
0.000 Dick and Frank Not significant
-0.024 Burt and Mike Not significant
-0.024 Ed and Mike Not significant
-0.238 Dick and Mike Not significant
-0.238 Frank and Alan Not significant
-0.405 Dick and Alan Not significant
-0.429 Orley and Mike Not significant
-0.667 Burt and Alan Significantly negative
-0.714 Zaki and Alan Significantly negative
-0.738 Orley and Alan Significantly negative
COMMENT:
Overall this tasting was a very enjoyable tasting of Bordeaux blends that were in general 10 years of age and they were all drinking beautifully. The winner was the Pichon Baron 2016 was just coming into its own and will provide many years of pleasurable drinking. Having said that 2 lesser known properties, the Reignac and the Oculus did very well and this demonstrates that there are great strides being made by regions and areas unknown 10 years ago.
The Montelena which was 2004 was a little disappointing,maybe past it’s best and the eponymous Australian wine from Coonawarra was selected on its similarity to the hosts name. It came in last.
Return to the previous page