>
WINETASTER ON 03/30/98 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 7 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N
Copyright (c) 1995-98 Richard E. Quandt
FLIGHT 1:
Number of Judges = 7
Number of Wines = 7
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Sassicaia 1990 tied for 5th place
Wine B is Sassicaia 1978 ........ 3rd place
Wine C is Sassicaia 1988 ........ 2nd place
Wine D is Sassicaia 1986 ........ 1st place
Wine E is Sassicaia 1982 ........ 4th place
Wine F is Sassicaia 1985 ........ 7th place
Wine G is Sassicaia 1981 tied for 5th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G
Bob E. 4. 2. 1. 3. 5. 7. 6.
Frank V. 3. 6. 5. 1. 2. 7. 4.
John L. 5. 1. 7. 4. 6. 3. 2.
Grant S. 4. 3. 7. 1. 2. 6. 5.
Edward B. 6. 4. 1. 5. 3. 2. 7.
Richard Q. 6. 3. 2. 1. 4. 7. 5.
Orley A. 3. 6. 1. 4. 5. 7. 2.
Table of Votes Against
Wine -> A B C D E F G
Group Ranking -> 5 3 2 1 4 7 5
Votes Against -> 31 25 24 19 27 39 31
( 7 is the best possible, 49 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 = 0.1793
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation
is rather large, 0.2745. 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.
Correlation Between the Ranks of
Each Person With the Average Ranking of Others
Name of Person Correlation R
Richard Q. 0.9550
Bob E. 0.5225
Frank V. 0.4144
Grant S. 0.1786
Orley A. -0.0357
Edward B. -0.0360
John L. -0.5000
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 Sassicaia 1986
2. ........ 2nd place Wine C is Sassicaia 1988
3. ........ 3rd place Wine B is Sassicaia 1978
4. ........ 4th place Wine E is Sassicaia 1982
5. tied for 5th place Wine A is Sassicaia 1990
6. tied for 5th place Wine G is Sassicaia 1981
-------------------------------------------------------------
7. ........ 7th place Wine F is Sassicaia 1985
COMMENT:
Tasting on March 30, 1998--Comments by Orley Ashenfelter
The main comment about these wines regarded their consistency.
Surprisingly, the 1985 was disliked (relatively) to the others, and some
thought it was a corked bottle. At least one taster (strongly)
disagreed. The wines were a pleasure to drink, and everyone agreed that
either the 1985 was too young, or simply flawed. Perhaps the 1988
is underrated in the scheme of things, but virtually all the wines were
wonderful to drink today. Surprising to some, the ratings in this tasting
were virtually the opposite of the way the prices are arrayed in the
auctions, and the way that the best known rater rates the wines.
Coincidentally, a tasting from 2/14/94 was devoted to exactly the same vintages of
Sassicaia. Comparing the overall rankings of the wines in the two tastings yields a
Spearman rank correlation coefficient rho of 0.63, which, while not significantly
different from zero at the 0.1 level, still shows a respectable amount of intertemporal
consistency.
Return to previous page