WINETASTER ON 5/15/23 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 7 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT = N Copyright (c) 1995-2023 Richard E. Quandt, V. 3.0 Leoviille Poyferre 2001 - 20012
Identification of the Wine The Judges' Overall Ranking: Wine D is 2012 Leoville Poyferre ........ 1st place Wine E is 2010 Leoville Poyferre ........ 2nd place Wine C is 2001 Leoville Poyferre ........ 3rd place Wine G is 2008 Loville Poyferre ........ 4th place Wine A is 2006 Leoville Poyferre tied for 5th place Wine B is 2003 Leoville Poyferre tied for 5th place Wine F is 2005 Leoville Poyferre ........ 7th place
The Judges' Rankings Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G Bert 1 2 5 3 4 6 7 Bob 2 6 3 4 5 7 1 Orley 7 4 1 3 2 5 6 Zaki 6 7 5 4 1 3 2 Peter 7 1 3 4 5 6 2 Frank 3 6 4 2 1 5 7 Mike 2 3 4 5 7 1 6 Ed 6 5 7 1 4 3 2 Wine -> A B C D E F G Group Ranking -> 5 5 3 1 2 7 4 Votes Against -> 34 34 32 26 29 36 33 (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 = 0.0391

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.9308. 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 Judge Spearman's Rho Frank 0.0000 Orley -0.1871 Ed -0.2224 Bert -0.3929 Zaki -0.4910 Bob -0.5637 Peter -0.5714 Mike -0.8929
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 2012 Leoville Poyferre 2. ........ 2nd place Wine E is 2010 Leoville Poyferre 3. ........ 3rd place Wine C is 2001 Leoville Poyferre 4. ........ 4th place Wine G is 2008 Loville Poyferre 5. tied for 5th place Wine A is 2006 Leoville Poyferre 6. tied for 5th place Wine B is 2003 Leoville Poyferre 7. ........ 7th place Wine F is 2005 Leoville Poyferre
We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-Square value is 1.875. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.931.
We now undertake a more detailed examination of the pair-wise rank correlations 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 0.744 for significance at the 0.05 level, and must exceed 0.667 for significance at the 0.10 level.

Correlation Array for the tasting is:

Bert Bob Orley Zaki Peter Frank Mike Ed Bert 1.000 -0.071 -0.107 -0.679 -0.214 0.429 0.250 -0.357 Bob -0.071 1.000 -0.286 0.036 0.071 -0.107 -0.357 -0.071 Orley -0.107 -0.286 1.000 0.143 0.286 0.429 -0.429 -0.179 Zaki -0.679 0.036 0.143 1.000 -0.179 0.214 -0.607 0.536 Peter -0.214 0.071 0.286 -0.179 1.000 -0.571 -0.357 0.071 Frank 0.429 -0.107 0.429 0.214 -0.571 1.000 -0.286 -0.036 Mike 0.250 -0.357 -0.429 -0.607 -0.357 -0.286 1.000 -0.321 Ed -0.357 -0.071 -0.179 0.536 0.071 -0.036 -0.321 1.000
Pairwise correlations in descending order

0.536 Zaki and Ed Not significant 0.429 Bert and Frank Not significant 0.429 Orley and Frank Not significant 0.286 Orley and Peter Not significant 0.250 Bert and Mike Not significant 0.214 Zaki and Frank Not significant 0.143 Orley and Zaki Not significant 0.071 Bob and Peter Not significant 0.071 Peter and Ed Not significant 0.036 Bob and Zaki Not significant -0.036 Frank and Ed Not significant -0.071 Bert and Bob Not significant -0.071 Bob and Ed Not significant -0.107 Bert and Orley Not significant -0.107 Bob and Frank Not significant -0.179 Orley and Ed Not significant -0.179 Zaki and Peter Not significant -0.214 Bert and Peter Not significant -0.286 Bob and Orley Not significant -0.286 Frank and Mike Not significant -0.321 Mike and Ed Not significant -0.357 Bert and Ed Not significant -0.357 Bob and Mike Not significant -0.357 Peter and Mike Not significant -0.429 Orley and Mike Not significant -0.571 Peter and Frank Not significant -0.607 Zaki and Mike Not significant -0.679 Bert and Zaki Not significant
COMMENT:

Overall this was a marvelous tasting, in the garden of our host at a delightful 70 deg f.
The food served was a delight of French provincial cuisine.
This was a challenging vertical of Leoville Poyferre. The 2 most recent vintages were most preferred amongst the group although there was no significance between the wines. It once again reminds us how pleasurable mature Bordeaux is to enjoy and drink with food. It also reminded us that there are no ‘off’ vintages in most decades a tribute to wine making and global warming.

We would encourage individuals to open and enjoy these wines over the next 10 years.

As a final treat the host produced a magnificent pistachio dacquoise to celebrate 30 years of publishing the tastings on-line finish the event .

Return to the previous page