WINETASTER ON 11/03/03 WITH 6 JUDGES AND 6 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2003 Richard E. Quandt

FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 6 Number of Wines = 6
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Nuits St Georges Vaucrains 1985 Gouges ........ 1st place Wine B is Volnay Champans 1985 Marquis d'Angervil ........ 2nd place Wine C is Chambolle Musigny 1985 Haut Doix Groffi ........ 4th place Wine D is Chambertin 1985, Bouree ........ 3rd place Wine E is Nuits St Georges Las Chaillots 1985 Dubois tied for 5th place Wine F is Savigny Les Vergelles 1985, Duibreuil tied for 5th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F John 1. 4. 2. 3. 6. 5. Burt 2. 3. 5. 1. 6. 4. Orley 6. 1. 4. 2. 3. 5. Bob 1. 3. 2. 4. 5. 6. Frank 1. 2. 6. 5. 3. 4. Dick 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 5.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F
Group Ranking -> 1 2 4 3 5 5 Votes Against -> 12 15 22 19 29 29
( 6 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 = 0.3968

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0361. 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 Dick 0.8857 Bob 0.7714 John 0.6377 Frank 0.4857 Burt 0.4286 Orley -0.0286

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 Nuits St Georges Vaucrains Gouges --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine B is Volnay Champans Marquis d'Angervil 3. ........ 3rd place Wine D is Chambertin 1985, Bouree 4. ........ 4th place Wine C is Chambolle Musigny Haut Doix Groffi --------------------------------------------------- 5. tied for 5th place Wine E is Nuits St Georges Las Chaillots Dub 6. tied for 5th place Wine F is Savigny Les Vergelles, Duibreuil We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 11.9048. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0361 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 0.89 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.83 for significance at the 0.1 level John Burt Orley John 1.000 0.543 -0.371 Burt 0.543 1.000 0.086 Orley -0.371 0.086 1.000 Bob 0.886 0.314 -0.200 Frank 0.029 0.200 -0.143 Dick 0.829 0.543 -0.143 Bob Frank Dick John 0.886 0.029 0.829 Burt 0.314 0.200 0.543 Orley -0.200 -0.143 -0.143 Bob 1.000 0.257 0.886 Frank 0.257 1.000 0.429 Dick 0.886 0.429 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.886 Bob and Dick Significantly positive 0.886 John and Bob Significantly positive 0.829 John and Dick Not significant 0.543 John and Burt Not significant 0.543 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.429 Frank and Dick Not significant 0.314 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.257 Bob and Frank Not significant 0.200 Burt and Frank Not significant 0.086 Burt and Orley Not significant 0.029 John and Frank Not significant -0.143 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.143 Orley and Frank Not significant -0.200 Orley and Bob Not significant -0.371 John and Orley Not significant

COMMENT: Comments by Orley Ashenfelter: Some may recall that we had developed data to predict the quality of red Burgundy vintages and that in Liquid Assets, we predicted 1985 would be outstanding. Virtually all wine critics agreed with this assessment (Robert Parker more than any other, perhaps-though now he no longer tastes in red Burgundy!) and so it has never been controversial-very low rainfall at harvest, a warm, but not hot (less warm that 1983 but far drier), growing season are what led to this view on the part of Liquid Assets. I have heard many complaints about this vintage-many people believe the wines have not really lived up to expectations. Today we test this view, with a range of wines from many communes and levels of quality. All the wines are premier crus except one, which is a grand cru (Chambertin, said to be Napoleon's favorite wine). Comments by the group as a whole: There is an unusual agreement among the members of the group, in a group that does not often agree completely. There was a very significant difference between wines A and B on the one hand and E and F on the other. The Gouge wines are famous for being authentic and during the scandals of 1950s and 1960s he was the one who stood for authentic Burgundies. The wines have extraordinary natural acidity. Some like this in the Gouge wines and some don't. There is no indication that any of these wines are over the hill. The purpose of tasting the wines was to see whether the widespread criticism of them was correct. The criticism is not supported. The Chambertin was slow in evolving and might indeed have scored higher given more time. These are very tasty wines, and we all wish we had more. Added on 1/13/2012: Upon studying the situation, it turned out that Report 21 and the present report share 4 of the six wines in the tasting, namely the two Nuits St. George, the Volnay and the Chambertin. Alas, those two reports ranked these four wines quite differently: in Report 21, the Chambertin was first, the Volnay was second, the N uits Vaucrains was third and the Nuits Chaillots was last. In Report 70, the present report, the Nuits Vaucrains was first, the Volnay was second, the Chambertin was third and the Nuits Chaillots last. This does not say much for intertemporal consistency.
Return to previous page