Identification of the Wine The Judges' Overall Ranking:
Wine C is 2015 Le Carillon de Rouget, Pomerol ........ 1st place
Wine A is 2016 Chateau Reignac, Grand Vin St Loube tied for 2nd place
Wine B is 1998 Chateau Leoville Barton 2eme cru St tied for 2nd place
Wine D is 2016 Echo de Lynch Bages, Pauillac ........ 4th place
Wine H is 1985 Chateau Leoville Barton, 2eme cru S ........ 5th place
Wine F is 1994 Chateau d’Armailhac 5eme cru Pauill ........ 6th place
Wine E is 1995 Chateau Grand Puy Lacoste 5eme cru ........ 7th place
Wine G is 1986 Chateau Sociando-Mallet, Haut Medoc ........ 8th place
The Judges' Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Zaki 2 4 1 7 8 5 6 3
Frank 7 6 1 4 2 8 5 3
Andrew 1 2 3 4 7 5 8 6
Bob 2 4 3 6 7 1 8 5
Mike 8 7 4 2 6 3 5 1
Dick 1 2 7 4 6 8 5 3
Tom 5 3 1 4 8 2 6 7
Glenn 5 3 4 1 2 7 6 8
Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 2 2 1 4 7 6 8 5
Votes Against -> 31 31 24 32 46 39 49 36
(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 = 0.1815
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.1793. 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
Judge Spearman's Rho
Andrew 0.7066
Tom 0.5868
Zaki 0.5238
Bob 0.4048
Dick 0.0714
Frank -0.0599
Glenn -0.1078
Mike -0.1905
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 2015 Le Carillon de Rouget, Pomerol
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. tied for 2nd place Wine A is 2016 Chateau Reignac, Grand Vin St Loubes
3. tied for 2nd place Wine B is 1998 Chateau Leoville Barton 2eme cru St Julien
4. ........ 4th place Wine D is 2016 Echo de Lynch Bages, Pauillac
5. ........ 5th place Wine H is 1985 Chateau Leoville Barton, 2eme cru St. Julien
6. ........ 6th place Wine F is 1994 Chateau d’Armailhac 5eme cru Pauillac
7. ........ 7th place Wine E is 1995 Chateau Grand Puy Lacoste 5eme cru Pauillac
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. ........ 8th place Wine G is 1986 Chateau Sociando-Mallet, Haut Medoc
We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-Square value is 10.167. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.179.
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 0.705 for significance at the 0.05 level, and must exceed 0.626 for significance at the 0.10 level.
Correlation Array for the tasting is:
Zaki Frank Andrew Bob Mike Dick Tom Glenn
Zaki 1.000 0.000 0.619 0.643 -0.095 0.238 0.476 -0.429
Frank 0.000 1.000 -0.286 -0.476 0.286 -0.238 -0.214 0.310
Andrew 0.619 -0.286 1.000 0.690 -0.405 0.476 0.571 0.238
Bob 0.643 -0.476 0.690 1.000 -0.095 -0.048 0.667 -0.310
Mike -0.095 0.286 -0.405 -0.095 1.000 -0.381 0.048 -0.286
Dick 0.238 -0.238 0.476 -0.048 -0.381 1.000 -0.310 0.071
Tom 0.476 -0.214 0.571 0.667 0.048 -0.310 1.000 0.048
Glenn -0.429 0.310 0.238 -0.310 -0.286 0.071 0.048 1.000
Pairwise correlations in descending order
0.690 Andrew and Bob Significantly positive
0.667 Bob and Tom Significantly positive
0.643 Zaki and Bob Significantly positive
0.619 Zaki and Andrew Not significant
0.571 Andrew and Tom Not significant
0.476 Zaki and Tom Not significant
0.476 Andrew and Dick Not significant
0.310 Frank and Glenn Not significant
0.286 Frank and Mike Not significant
0.238 Zaki and Dick Not significant
0.238 Andrew and Glenn Not significant
0.071 Dick and Glenn Not significant
0.048 Mike and Tom Not significant
0.048 Tom and Glenn Not significant
0.000 Zaki and Frank Not significant
-0.048 Bob and Dick Not significant
-0.095 Zaki and Mike Not significant
-0.095 Bob and Mike Not significant
-0.214 Frank and Tom Not significant
-0.238 Frank and Dick Not significant
-0.286 Frank and Andrew Not significant
-0.286 Mike and Glenn Not significant
-0.310 Bob and Glenn Not significant
-0.310 Dick and Tom Not significant
-0.381 Mike and Dick Not significant
-0.405 Andrew and Mike Not significant
-0.429 Zaki and Glenn Not significant
-0.476 Frank and Bob Not significant
COMMENT:
Overall the wines, despite the wide spreading in age were all very enjoyable. There appeared to be a bifurcation in the preferences between young and older wines between the tasters but they were all enjoyable. The wines were clearly identifiable as Bordeaux’s and it is interesting how well the younger wines were enjoyable now. Many of these younger wines were from good vintages and maybe made in a more approachable style. This was helped in this tasting by the younger wines being ‘second’ wines, made for earlier drinking.
The second wine of Rouget was 87% Merlot, making it very approachable.
The Reignac which is primarily 67% Merlot 25% Cab was the second preference and represented the best overall value, perhaps not being from one of the more recognized areas helps this.
Return to the previous page