Identification of the Wine The Judges' Overall Ranking:
Wine F is 1997 Latour ........ 1st place
Wine C is 1997 Lynch Bages tied for 2nd place
Wine E is 1997 Pavie tied for 2nd place
Wine D is 1997 Margaux ........ 4th place
Wine B is 1997 La Grangere ........ 5th place
Wine A is 1997 Haut Brion ........ 6th place
The Judges' Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F
Bob 1 3 2 6 5 4
Dick 6 5 3 4 2 1
Mike 6 5 2 1 3 4
Zaki 6 4 5 3 2 1
Wine -> A B C D E F
Group Ranking -> 6 5 2 4 2 1
Votes Against -> 19 17 12 14 12 10
(4 is the best possible, 24 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 = 0.2071
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.5291. 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
Dick 0.8533
Zaki 0.3769
Mike 0.0580
Bob -0.7143
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 F is 1997 Latour
2. tied for 2nd place Wine C is 1997 Lynch Bages
3. tied for 2nd place Wine E is 1997 Pavie
4. ........ 4th place Wine D is 1997 Margaux
5. ........ 5th place Wine B is 1997 La Grangere
6. ........ 6th place Wine A is 1997 Haut Brion
We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-Square value is 4.143. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.529.
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 0.812 for significance at the 0.05 level, and must exceed 0.740 for significance at the 0.10 level.
Correlation Array for the tasting is:
Bob Dick Mike Zaki
Bob 1.000 -0.486 -0.657 -0.771
Dick -0.486 1.000 0.429 0.829
Mike -0.657 0.429 1.000 0.314
Zaki -0.771 0.829 0.314 1.000
Pairwise correlations in descending order
0.829 Dick and Zaki Significantly positive
0.429 Dick and Mike Not significant
0.314 Mike and Zaki Not significant
-0.486 Bob and Dick Not significant
-0.657 Bob and Mike Not significant
-0.771 Bob and Zaki Significantly negative
COMMENT:
This was a delightful tasting from wines acquired over 20 years ago. The 1997 vintage was somewhat controversial and followed the well regarded 95 and 96’s and was very difficult for the growers due to heavy rain and humidity July and August. When first offered, 1997 Bordeaux wine was horribly overpriced. It took discounts of over 50% for the wines to even start selling through to consumers.
Interestingly 1997 Bordeaux wine was another in a series of moderate to poor vintages ending in the dreaded number 7. 1957, 1967, 1977, 1987 and 1997. That pattern continued with 2007.
Despite this and possibly a result of the selection of wines, these were all delicious, offering mature but by no means aged wines that still had 5-10 years ahead of them. Once again highlighting how well made Bordeaux from the top Chateau rarely disappoints.
The one disappointment was the Haut Brion, that was least preferred by 3 out of 4 tasters
In terms of pricing these wines today are comparable in cost to recently released 1st and 2nd growths but with the benefit of 20+ years maturity.
Return to the previous page