WINETASTER ON 04/03/06 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2006 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 Ch. Petrus 1979 ........ 8th place Wine B is Ch. Petrus 1975 ........ 4th place Wine C is Ch. Petrus 1982 ........ 3rd place Wine D is Ch. Petrus 1961 ........ 1st place Wine E is Ch. Petrus 1978 ........ 2nd place Wine F is Ch. Petrus 1989 ........ 5th place Wine G is Ch. Petrus 1990 ........ 7th place Wine H is Ch. Trotanoy 1961 ........ 6th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Frank 8. 7. 5. 1. 3. 2. 4. 6. Tom 5. 6. 4. 2. 3. 8. 7. 1. Mike 6. 5. 7. 3. 1. 2. 4. 8. Bob 3. 1. 6. 5. 4. 8. 7. 2. Burt 6. 8. 2. 1. 3. 4. 5. 7. John 7. 4. 1. 2. 8. 3. 5. 6. Dick 4. 3. 2. 5. 1. 8. 6. 7.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 8 4 3 1 2 5 7 6 Votes Against -> 39 34 27 19 23 35 38 37
( 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 = 0.1924
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.2233. 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 Burt 0.5868 Frank 0.2635 Dick 0.2381 Tom 0.1190 John 0.0958 Mike 0.0120 Bob -0.4762
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 Ch. Petrus 1961 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine E is Ch. Petrus 1978 3. ........ 3rd place Wine C is Ch. Petrus 1982 4. ........ 4th place Wine B is Ch. Petrus 1975 5. ........ 5th place Wine F is Ch. Petrus 1989 6. ........ 6th place Wine H is Ch. Trotanoy 1961 7. ........ 7th place Wine G is Ch. Petrus 1990 8. ........ 8th place Wine A is Ch. Petrus 1979 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 9.4286. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.2233 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 Frank Tom Mike Frank 1.000 0.024 0.714 Tom 0.024 1.000 -0.310 Mike 0.714 -0.310 1.000 Bob -0.667 0.476 -0.429 Burt 0.762 0.214 0.429 John 0.357 -0.143 -0.119 Dick -0.214 0.238 0.071 Bob Burt John Frank -0.667 0.762 0.357 Tom 0.476 0.214 -0.143 Mike -0.429 0.429 -0.119 Bob 1.000 -0.619 -0.429 Burt -0.619 1.000 0.452 John -0.429 0.452 1.000 Dick 0.333 0.214 -0.143 Dick Frank -0.214 Tom 0.238 Mike 0.071 Bob 0.333 Burt 0.214 John -0.143 Dick 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.762 Frank and Burt Significantly positive 0.714 Frank and Mike Significantly positive 0.476 Tom and Bob Not significant 0.452 Burt and John Not significant 0.429 Mike and Burt Not significant 0.357 Frank and John Not significant 0.333 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.238 Tom and Dick Not significant 0.214 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.214 Tom and Burt Not significant 0.071 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.024 Frank and Tom Not significant -0.119 Mike and John Not significant -0.143 Tom and John Not significant -0.143 John and Dick Not significant -0.214 Frank and Dick Not significant -0.310 Tom and Mike Not significant -0.429 Mike and Bob Not significant -0.429 Bob and John Not significant -0.619 Bob and Burt Not significant -0.667 Frank and Bob Significantly negative
COMMENT: This was an extraordinary tasting of the most extraordinary wines; every one of them was delicious and it was very difficult to distinguish between the various wines, which is supported by the low correlation among the tasters. Age has its advantage with the exception of 1982, which is either old before its time or a wine of unbelievable potential. These are wines clearly built for long haul perfect balance between fruit and tannins. That may explain why the 1989 and the 1990 have not come into their own. The great face-off between the the wines rated 100 by Parker ('61, '89, '90) are decided by age. It is also noteworthy that the wine rated second best by this group was rated lowest among these wines by Parker,
Return to previous page