WINETASTER ON 10/07/02 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 7 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=Y Copyright (c) 1995-2002 Richard E. Quandt
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 7
ReportAll wines are 1989 Rhone wines. "CdP" means Chateauneuf du Pape. Two of the bottles were identical wines.Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Chateauneuf du Pape, Bernardin,Chapoutier tied for 3rd place Wine B is St.Joseph, Trollat Raymond ........ 6th place Wine C is CdP, Monpertuis, Jeune ........ 5th place Wine D is CdP, Beaucastel tied for 3rd place Wine E is CdP, Monpertuis, Jeune ........ 7th place Wine F is Gigondas, Hauts de Montmirail,Brusset ........ 1st place Wine G is CdP, Les Cailloux, Brunel ........ 2nd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G Frank 1. 6. 2. 4. 7. 3. 5. John 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 3. 1. Burt 5. 6. 7. 2. 4. 1. 3. Orley 3. 4. 6. 1. 7. 2. 5. Bob 4. 6. 5. 2. 7. 1. 3. Ed 3. 4. 6. 5. 7. 1. 2. Grant 3. 6. 5. 4. 7. 1. 2. Dick 6. 5. 4. 3. 7. 2. 1.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G
Group Ranking -> 3 6 5 3 7 1 2 Votes Against -> 27 41 40 27 53 14 22
( 8 is the best possible, 56 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 = 0.5915
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0001. 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 Grant 0.9550 Bob 0.8829 Ed 0.8214 Dick 0.6547 Burt 0.6071 Orley 0.5714 John 0.5225 Frank 0.2857
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 F is Gigondas, Hauts de Montmirail,Brusset --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine G is CdP, Les Cailloux, Brunel 3. tied for 3rd place Wine A is CdP, Bernardin,Chapoutier 4. tied for 3rd place Wine D is CdP, Beaucastel 5. ........ 5th place Wine C is CdP, Monpertuis, Jeune 6. ........ 6th place Wine B is St.Joseph, Trollat Raymond --------------------------------------------------- 7. ........ 7th place Wine E is CdP, Monpertuis, Jeune We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 28.3929. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0001 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 0.79 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.71 for significance at the 0.1 level Frank John Burt Frank 1.000 0.393 -0.107 John 0.393 1.000 0.107 Burt -0.107 0.107 1.000 Orley 0.393 0.214 0.571 Bob 0.464 0.429 0.750 Ed 0.321 0.857 0.500 Grant 0.536 0.750 0.607 Dick 0.143 0.500 0.536 Orley Bob Ed Frank 0.393 0.464 0.321 John 0.214 0.429 0.857 Burt 0.571 0.750 0.500 Orley 1.000 0.786 0.536 Bob 0.786 1.000 0.714 Ed 0.536 0.714 1.000 Grant 0.571 0.893 0.893 Dick 0.393 0.786 0.643 Grant Dick Frank 0.536 0.143 John 0.750 0.500 Burt 0.607 0.536 Orley 0.571 0.393 Bob 0.893 0.786 Ed 0.893 0.643 Grant 1.000 0.750 Dick 0.750 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.893 Ed and Grant Significantly positive 0.893 Bob and Grant Significantly positive 0.857 John and Ed Significantly positive 0.786 Bob and Dick Significantly positive 0.786 Orley and Bob Significantly positive 0.750 Burt and Bob Significantly positive 0.750 Grant and Dick Significantly positive 0.750 John and Grant Significantly positive 0.714 Bob and Ed Significantly positive 0.643 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.607 Burt and Grant Not significant 0.571 Orley and Grant Not significant 0.571 Burt and Orley Not significant 0.536 Orley and Ed Not significant 0.536 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.536 Frank and Grant Not significant 0.500 Burt and Ed Not significant 0.500 John and Dick Not significant 0.464 Frank and Bob Not significant 0.429 John and Bob Not significant 0.393 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.393 Frank and John Not significant 0.393 Frank and Orley Not significant 0.321 Frank and Ed Not significant 0.214 John and Orley Not significant 0.143 Frank and Dick Not significant 0.107 John and Burt Not significant -0.107 Frank and Burt Not significant
COMMENT: It was a wonderful tasting and the overall quality of the wines was superb The wines were totally ready. One wine, wine E, which was a CdP by Paul Jeune, was oxidized, suggesting that some of these wines should be drunk very soon. The most interesting finding is the Gigondas, being ranked number 1 and in excellent shape, while it is undoubtedly the least or next to least expensive. Keep your eye out for 1989 Gigondas by Daniel Brusset. Query: Was the Beaucastel comparatively youthful and not yet at its prime? The preference for Gigondas may however be just a preference for tastes. Almost certainly, these wines are now ready to drink and there is no reason to not drink them, with the exception of the Beaucastel.
Return to previous page