WINETASTER ON 04/07/08 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2003 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Ch. Latour 1975 ........ 6th place Wine B is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1975 ........ 3rd place Wine C is Ch. Pichon-Longueville Lalande 1975 ........ 7th place Wine D is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1975 tied for 1st place Wine E is Ch. Trotanoy 1975 ........ 4th place Wine F is Ch. Petrus 1975 tied for 1st place Wine G is Ch. La Mission Haut Brion 1975 ........ 5th place Wine H is Ch. Lynch Bages 1975 ........ 8th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Orley 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 8. 7. 6. Burt 6. 8. 5. 1. 4. 7. 3. 2. Mike 8. 2. 6. 4. 3. 1. 5. 7. Ed 4. 3. 5. 6. 1. 2. 7. 8. John 2. 5. 6. 4. 7. 1. 3. 8. Bob 2. 1. 5. 4. 3. 6. 7. 8. Tom 7. 1. 4. 5. 6. 2. 3. 8. Dick 5. 6. 7. 4. 8. 2. 1. 3.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 6 3 7 1 4 1 5 8 Votes Against -> 37 30 43 29 34 29 36 50
( 8 is the best possible, 64 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 = 0.1429
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.3326. 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 Mike 0.5663 Tom 0.3333 Ed 0.2651 John 0.2275 Bob 0.1437 Orley -0.0952 Dick -0.2857 Burt -0.5150
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. tied for 1st place Wine F is Ch. Petrus 1975 2. tied for 1st place Wine D is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1975 3. ........ 3rd place Wine B is Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou 1975 4. ........ 4th place Wine E is Ch. Trotanoy 1975 5. ........ 5th place Wine G is Ch. La Mission Haut Brion 1975 6. ........ 6th place Wine A is Ch. Latour 1975 7. ........ 7th place Wine C is Ch. Pichon-Longueville Lalande 197 --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine H is Ch. Lynch Bages 1975 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 8.0000. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.3326 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 Orley Burt Mike Orley 1.000 0.262 -0.119 Burt 0.262 1.000 -0.381 Mike -0.119 -0.381 1.000 Ed 0.190 -0.667 0.619 John -0.262 -0.381 0.214 Bob 0.667 -0.524 0.190 Tom -0.357 -0.571 0.738 Dick -0.643 0.238 0.000 Ed John Bob Orley 0.190 -0.262 0.667 Burt -0.667 -0.381 -0.524 Mike 0.619 0.214 0.190 Ed 1.000 0.214 0.619 John 0.214 1.000 0.119 Bob 0.619 0.119 1.000 Tom 0.333 0.429 0.190 Dick -0.524 0.500 -0.667 Tom Dick Orley -0.357 -0.643 Burt -0.571 0.238 Mike 0.738 0.000 Ed 0.333 -0.524 John 0.429 0.500 Bob 0.190 -0.667 Tom 1.000 0.143 Dick 0.143 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.738 Mike and Tom Significantly positive 0.667 Orley and Bob Significantly positive 0.619 Mike and Ed Not significant 0.619 Ed and Bob Not significant 0.500 John and Dick Not significant 0.429 John and Tom Not significant 0.333 Ed and Tom Not significant 0.262 Orley and Burt Not significant 0.238 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.214 Mike and John Not significant 0.214 Ed and John Not significant 0.190 Mike and Bob Not significant 0.190 Orley and Ed Not significant 0.190 Bob and Tom Not significant 0.143 Tom and Dick Not significant 0.119 John and Bob Not significant 0.000 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.119 Orley and Mike Not significant -0.262 Orley and John Not significant -0.357 Orley and Tom Not significant -0.381 Burt and Mike Not significant -0.381 Burt and John Not significant -0.524 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.524 Burt and Bob Not significant -0.571 Burt and Tom Not significant -0.643 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.667 Burt and Ed Significantly negative -0.667 Bob and Dick Significantly negative
COMMENT: When these wines first came out, they were highly touted and claimed to be one of the great vintages of the century. We should note that the 1970s were a very cool decade with many vintages that are completely forgotten, justifiably so. Within this context, this was seen as a must-buy vintage. But this vintage may now be finally living up to its early reputation. The tannins in this vintage have finally softened, but at an age of 33 years these wines have no orange tint, which was an early concern with many wines of this vintage. It should be noted that all the wines tasted had been kept in impeccable temperature conditions.
Return to previous page