WINETASTER ON 01/03/00 WITH 9 JUDGES AND 4 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2000 Richard E. Quandt
Number of Judges = 9 Number of Wines = 4
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Ch. Mouton Rothschild 1945 ........ 1st place Wine B is Ch. Latour 1953 ........ 4th place Wine C is Ch. Haut Brion 1961 ........ 3rd place Wine D is Ch. Ausone 1962 ........ 2nd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D John 1. 4. 2. 3. Orley 1. 4. 3. 2. Burt 3. 4. 2. 1. Ed 4. 3. 1. 2. Bob 1. 3. 4. 2. Karl 3. 4. 2. 1. Grant 1. 3. 2. 4. Frank 1. 4. 2. 3. Dick 1. 3. 4. 2.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D
Group Ranking -> 1 4 3 2 Votes Against -> 16 32 22 20
( 9 is the best possible, 36 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 = 0.3432
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0259. 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 Orley 1.0000 John 0.8000 Frank 0.8000 Bob 0.6325 Dick 0.6325 Karl 0.4000 Burt 0.4000 Grant 0.4000 Ed -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 A is Ch. Mouton Rothschild 1945 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine D is Ch. Ausone 1962 3. ........ 3rd place Wine C is Ch. Haut Brion 1961 --------------------------------------------------- 4. ........ 4th place Wine B is Ch. Latour 1953 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 9.2667. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0259 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 1.00 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 1.00 for significance at the 0.1 level John Orley Burt John 1.000 0.800 0.200 Orley 0.800 1.000 0.400 Burt 0.200 0.400 1.000 Ed -0.200 -0.400 0.600 Bob 0.400 0.800 0.000 Karl 0.200 0.400 1.000 Grant 0.800 0.400 -0.400 Frank 1.000 0.800 0.200 Dick 0.400 0.800 0.000 Ed Bob Karl John -0.200 0.400 0.200 Orley -0.400 0.800 0.400 Burt 0.600 0.000 1.000 Ed 1.000 -0.800 0.600 Bob -0.800 1.000 0.000 Karl 0.600 0.000 1.000 Grant -0.400 0.200 -0.400 Frank -0.200 0.400 0.200 Dick -0.800 1.000 0.000 Grant Frank Dick John 0.800 1.000 0.400 Orley 0.400 0.800 0.800 Burt -0.400 0.200 0.000 Ed -0.400 -0.200 -0.800 Bob 0.200 0.400 1.000 Karl -0.400 0.200 0.000 Grant 1.000 0.800 0.200 Frank 0.800 1.000 0.400 Dick 0.200 0.400 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 1.000 Burt and Karl Significantly positive 1.000 Bob and Dick Significantly positive 1.000 John and Frank Significantly positive 0.800 Orley and Bob Not significant 0.800 Grant and Frank Not significant 0.800 John and Grant Not significant 0.800 John and Orley Not significant 0.800 Orley and Frank Not significant 0.800 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.600 Ed and Karl Not significant 0.600 Burt and Ed Not significant 0.400 John and Bob Not significant 0.400 John and Dick Not significant 0.400 Orley and Burt Not significant 0.400 Bob and Frank Not significant 0.400 Orley and Karl Not significant 0.400 Orley and Grant Not significant 0.400 Frank and Dick Not significant 0.200 Bob and Grant Not significant 0.200 John and Burt Not significant 0.200 Grant and Dick Not significant 0.200 Karl and Frank Not significant 0.200 John and Karl Not significant 0.200 Burt and Frank Not significant 0.000 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.000 Karl and Dick Not significant 0.000 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.000 Bob and Karl Not significant -0.200 John and Ed Not significant -0.200 Ed and Frank Not significant -0.400 Burt and Grant Not significant -0.400 Ed and Grant Not significant -0.400 Karl and Grant Not significant -0.400 Orley and Ed Not significant -0.800 Ed and Bob Not significant -0.800 Ed and Dick Not significant
COMMENT:
We all agreed that all the wines were in outstanding condition and
delicious to drink. The wines were served blind with filet mignon grilled
over hickory wood and all were outstanding to drink now, inspite of
Michael Broadbent's 1980 comment that the Latour should be drunk by 1993
and the Ausone by 1985. The prices probably range from $4,000 per bottle
to $500, the first place wine being the most expensive, and the second
place wine the least. People who liked the Mouton least thought it had
a medicinal character. Our host provided a bonus wine, 1961 Ch. Palmer.
The wine was fresh, and delicious to drink also.
There are many people who claim that all these wines are too old; this
tasting shows that that is not true.