WINETASTER ON 3/25/24 WITH 5 JUDGES AND 4 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT = N Copyright (c) 1995-2024 Richard E. Quandt, V. 3.0 1983 Bordeaux
Identification of the Wine The Judges' Overall Ranking: Wine D is 1983 Chateau Mouton Rothschild ........ 1st place Wine B is 1983 Chateau Lafite ........ 2nd place Wine A is 1983 Chateau Gruaud Larose ........ 3rd place Wine C is 1983 Chateau Lanessan ........ 4th place
The Judges' Rankings Judge Wine -> A B C D Orley 2 1 3 4 Dick 4 3 2 1 Frank 3 2 4 1 Mike 4 3 2 1 Bob 1 2 4 3 Wine -> A B C D Group Ranking -> 3 2 4 1 Votes Against -> 14 11 15 10 (5 is the best possible, 20 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 = 0.1360

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.5640. 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 Frank 0.8944 Dick 0.0000 Mike 0.0000 Orley -0.3162 Bob -0.4000
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 D is 1983 Chateau Mouton Rothschild 2. ........ 2nd place Wine B is 1983 Chateau Lafite 3. ........ 3rd place Wine A is 1983 Chateau Gruaud Larose 4. ........ 4th place Wine C is 1983 Chateau Lanessan
We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-Square value is 2.040. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.564.
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 0.961 for significance at the 0.05 level, and must exceed 0.928 for significance at the 0.10 level.

Correlation Array for the tasting is:

Orley Dick Frank Mike Bob Orley 1.000 -0.800 -0.200 -0.800 0.600 Dick -0.800 1.000 0.400 1.000 -0.800 Frank -0.200 0.400 1.000 0.400 0.200 Mike -0.800 1.000 0.400 1.000 -0.800 Bob 0.600 -0.800 0.200 -0.800 1.000
Pairwise correlations in descending order

1.000 Dick and Mike Significantly positive 0.600 Orley and Bob Not significant 0.400 Dick and Frank Not significant 0.400 Frank and Mike Not significant 0.200 Frank and Bob Not significant -0.200 Orley and Frank Not significant -0.800 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.800 Orley and Mike Not significant -0.800 Dick and Bob Not significant -0.800 Mike and Bob Not significant

Overall this was a marvelous opportunity to taste the 83 vintage from a cellar that they have remained undisturbed. The wines were all in great condition and a treat to drink. The evening started with an 89 Mersault from Jobard which was a beautiful mature white from Burgundy in the great tradition of old white burgundy.
The surprise in terms of over performance was the Lanessan which today is likely valued at well below that of its peers.
The star of the tasting was the Mouton

Return to the previous page