Report

WINETASTER ON 03/15/04 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N
Copyright (c) 1995-2004 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

FLIGHT 1:
Number of Judges = 7
Number of Wines = 8

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:

Wine A is Tokaji Aszu 6 putt 1988 ........ 3rd place
Wine B is Tokaji Aszu 5 putt 1990 ........ 8th place
Wine C is Tokajsky Výber 4 putnový 1995 ........ 4th place
Wine D is Tokaji Aszu, no putt, no vintage tied for 6th place
Wine E is Tokaji Aszu Eszencia 1988 ........ 2nd place
Wine F is Tokaji Aszu 5 putt 1989 ........ 1st place
Wine G is Tokaji Aszu 3 putt 1997 tied for 6th place
Wine H is Tokaji Aszu 4 putt 1990 ........ 5th place

The Judges's Rankings

Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H

Lesley 3. 7. 4. 6. 2. 1. 5. 8.
Orley 3. 8. 4. 7. 2. 1. 5. 6.
Frank 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 7. 8.
Ginna 4. 5. 3. 6. 8. 1. 7. 2.
John 7. 6. 5. 8. 2. 1. 3. 4.
Karl 2. 5. 8. 4. 1. 3. 6. 7.
Dick 3. 8. 5. 6. 1. 2. 7. 4.

Table of Votes Against

Wine -> A B C D E F G H

Group Ranking -> 3 8 4 6 2 1 6 5
Votes Against -> 28 44 33 40 18 10 40 39

( 7 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 = 0.4937

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation
is quite small, 0.0011. 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 0.9222
Lesley 0.8333
Dick 0.8095
Frank 0.4762
John 0.4048
Karl 0.3333
Ginna 0.0952

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 Tokaji Aszu 5 putt1989
2. ........ 2nd place Wine E is Tokaji Aszu Ezencia 1988
---------------------------------------------------
3. ........ 3rd place Wine A is Tokaji Aszu 6 putt 1988
4. ........ 4th place Wine C is Tokajsky Vyber 4 putovny 1995
5. ........ 5th place Wine H is Tokaji Aszu 4 putt 1990
6. tied for 6th place Wine D is Tokaji Aszu, no putt, no vintage
7. tied for 6th place Wine G is Tokaji Aszu 3 putt 1997
---------------------------------------------------
8. ........ 8th place Wine B is Tokaji Aszu 5 putt 1990

We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering.
The Friedman Chi-square value is 24.1905. The probability that this could
happen by chance is 0.0011

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 0.74 for significance at the 0.05
level and must exceed 0.64 for significance at the 0.1 level

Lesley Orley Frank

Lesley 1.000 0.929 0.690
Orley 0.929 1.000 0.500
Frank 0.690 0.500 1.000
Ginna 0.024 0.190 -0.024
John 0.500 0.643 0.286
Karl 0.619 0.500 0.524
Dick 0.714 0.857 0.452

Ginna John Karl

Lesley 0.024 0.500 0.619
Orley 0.190 0.643 0.500
Frank -0.024 0.286 0.524
Ginna 1.000 0.119 -0.333
John 0.119 1.000 0.119
Karl -0.333 0.119 1.000
Dick 0.190 0.500 0.595

Dick

Lesley 0.714
Orley 0.857
Frank 0.452
Ginna 0.190
John 0.500
Karl 0.595
Dick 1.000

Pairwise correlations in descending order

0.929 Lesley and Orley Significantly positive
0.857 Orley and Dick Significantly positive
0.714 Lesley and Dick Significantly positive
0.690 Lesley and Frank Significantly positive
0.643 Orley and John Not significant
0.619 Lesley and Karl Not significant
0.595 Karl and Dick Not significant
0.524 Frank and Karl Not significant
0.500 Orley and Frank Not significant
0.500 Orley and Karl Not significant
0.500 John and Dick Not significant
0.500 Lesley and John Not significant
0.452 Frank and Dick Not significant
0.286 Frank and John Not significant
0.190 Ginna and Dick Not significant
0.190 Orley and Ginna Not significant
0.119 John and Karl Not significant
0.119 Ginna and John Not significant
0.024 Lesley and Ginna Not significant
-0.024 Frank and Ginna Not significant
-0.333 Ginna and Karl Not significant

COMMENT:

It is appropriate that we were tasting Tokaji wines on the 156th anniversary
of the outbreak of the Hungarian rebellion against the House of Hapsburg. Tokaji wines are produced in
the Tokaj-Hegyalja of Northeast Hungary, as well as in Slovakia, because the northernmost tip of
that region stretches into Slovakia. Wine C is a Slovak Tokaji wine. The "puttonyos" designation
(putnový in Slovak) denotes the number of 28-30 liter tubs of botrysed berry mash added
to a 136-140 liter barrel of must. Generally, the higher the puttonyos number, the sweeter the
wine. For details, see Miles Lambert Gócs, "Keep Young and Beautiful," Harpers,
January 23, 2004.

The wine made by Hollóköi Mihály (wine F) was extraordinary, especially
because it is only 5 puttonyos, and competitive with the Eszencia we
tasted. But Hollóköi is one of the foremost small producers, and this should
perhaps be no surprise. Wine D suffered unduly because of its appearance: cloudy and near
the bottom of the bottle, muddy. Wine B was last placed and some people
thought it was corked.The three puttonyos, wine G, was much lighter in
color and many thought it was the youngest wine, which it was. Several
people thought that after E, A and F, there was a huge quality gap.

Return to previous page