Identification of the Wine The Judges' Overall Ranking:
Wine D is 1996 Opus One Mondavi Rothsch ........ 1st place
Wine A is 1999 Chateau Lynch Bages ........ 2nd place
Wine B is 2000 Quintessa Rutherford ........ 3rd place
Wine C is 2016 Catena Zapata Estiba Res tied for 4th place
Wine H is 2000 Chateau Pavie tied for 4th place
Wine F is 1992 Catena Zapata Estiba Res ........ 6th place
Wine E is 1987 Vega- Sicilia Unico ........ 7th place
Wine G is 1998 Cims de Porrera Classico ........ 8th place
The Judges' Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Burt 1 4 7 3 2 5 8 6
Bob 3 4 2 1 8 7 6 5
Frank 3 2 5 4 7 1 8 6
Mike 4 6 2 1 3 5 8 7
Dick 6 1 7 3 8 5 2 4
Orley 3 6 7 4 5 2 8 1
Zaki 3 6 1 5 8 7 4 2
Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 2 3 4 1 7 6 8 4
Votes Against -> 23 29 31 21 41 32 44 31
(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 = 0.2119
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.1680. 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
Bob 0.5663
Frank 0.3571
Burt 0.2635
Orley 0.1928
Mike 0.1667
Zaki -0.0238
Dick -0.2515
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 1996 Opus One Mondavi Rothschild
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ........ 2nd place Wine A is 1999 Chateau Lynch Bages
3. ........ 3rd place Wine B is 2000 Quintessa Rutherford
4. tied for 4th place Wine C is 2016 Catena Zapata Estiba Reservada
5. tied for 4th place Wine H is 2000 Chateau Pavie
6. ........ 6th place Wine F is 1992 Catena Zapata Estiba Reservada
7. ........ 7th place Wine E is 1987 Vega- Sicilia Unico
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. ........ 8th place Wine G is 1998 Cims de Porrera Classico
We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-Square value is 10.381. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.168.
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 0.705 for significance at the 0.05 level, and must exceed 0.626 for significance at the 0.10 level.
Correlation Array for the tasting is:
Burt Bob Frank Mike Dick Orley Zaki
Burt 1.000 0.071 0.357 0.476 -0.310 0.381 -0.429
Bob 0.071 1.000 0.238 0.500 0.190 -0.095 0.595
Frank 0.357 0.238 1.000 0.190 0.143 0.405 -0.214
Mike 0.476 0.500 0.190 1.000 -0.524 0.000 -0.048
Dick -0.310 0.190 0.143 -0.524 1.000 -0.167 -0.024
Orley 0.381 -0.095 0.405 0.000 -0.167 1.000 -0.048
Zaki -0.429 0.595 -0.214 -0.048 -0.024 -0.048 1.000
Pairwise correlations in descending order
0.595 Bob and Zaki Not significant
0.500 Bob and Mike Not significant
0.476 Burt and Mike Not significant
0.405 Frank and Orley Not significant
0.381 Burt and Orley Not significant
0.357 Burt and Frank Not significant
0.238 Bob and Frank Not significant
0.190 Bob and Dick Not significant
0.190 Frank and Mike Not significant
0.143 Frank and Dick Not significant
0.071 Burt and Bob Not significant
0.000 Mike and Orley Not significant
-0.024 Dick and Zaki Not significant
-0.048 Mike and Zaki Not significant
-0.048 Orley and Zaki Not significant
-0.095 Bob and Orley Not significant
-0.167 Dick and Orley Not significant
-0.214 Frank and Zaki Not significant
-0.310 Burt and Dick Not significant
-0.429 Burt and Zaki Not significant
-0.524 Mike and Dick Not significant
COMMENT:
Overall this was a very interesting and eclectic tasting covering both hemispheres with fine examples from our hosts cellars.
Despite the differing styles there was a surprising unanimity in preference for the winner which was a ready to drink 1996 Opus One wine that was drinking well and has many years ahead of it. The youngest wine in the tasting held up well against older wines and its older sister the 1992 did equally well. The older wines once again demonstrated the value of good cellaring.
All the wines were in good condition but the Cims de Porrea was felt to be slightly oxidized and thus impacted its rating.
This was a lot of fun.
Return to the previous page