Identification of the Wine The Judges' Overall Ranking:
Wine A is 2007 Elio Grasso Gavarini Chiniera ........ 1st place
Wine E is 2001 Damilano ........ 2nd place
Wine B is 2000 Attillo Ghisolfi, Bricco Visetta ........ 3rd place
Wine C is 2007 Elio Grasso, Runot Riserva ........ 4th place
Wine F is 2007 Elio Altare ........ 5th place
Wine G is 2008 Elio Grasso, Ginestra Casa Mate ........ 6th place
Wine H is 2004 Manzone, Bricat ........ 7th place
Wine D is 2000 Corino, Vigneto Roncaglie ........ 8th place
The Judges' Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Dick 3 1 8 5 7 4 6 2
Dean 2 4 3 1 6 5 7 8
Mike 6 1 2 5 8 7 4 3
Mimi 1 6 5 7 2 8 3 4
Bob 2 8 6 7 1 3 5 4
Zaki 6 7 5 3 2 4 1 8
Burt 5 1 2 7 3 4 8 6
David 2 3 5 7 1 4 6 8
Frank 2 6 4 8 1 3 7 5
Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 1 3 4 8 2 5 6 7
Votes Against -> 29 37 40 50 31 42 47 48
(9 is the best possible, 72 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 = 0.1252
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.3425. 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
David 0.8810
Frank 0.6905
Burt 0.5988
Mimi 0.2994
Bob 0.2143
Dean 0.0361
Zaki -0.2857
Dick -0.3333
Mike -0.5302
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 A is 2007 Elio Grasso Gavarini Chiniera
2. ........ 2nd place Wine E is 2001 Damilano
3. ........ 3rd place Wine B is 2000 Attillo Ghisolfi, Bricco Visetta
4. ........ 4th place Wine C is 2007 Elio Grasso, Runot Riserva
5. ........ 5th place Wine F is 2007 Elio Altare
6. ........ 6th place Wine G is 2008 Elio Grasso, Ginestra Casa Mate
7. ........ 7th place Wine H is 2004 Manzone, Bricat
8. ........ 8th place Wine D is 2000 Corino, Vigneto Roncaglie
We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-Square value is 7.889. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.343.
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:
Dick Dean Mike Mimi Bob Zaki Burt David Frank
Dick 1.000 -0.071 0.286 -0.143 -0.190 -0.714 0.048 -0.071 -0.167
Dean -0.071 1.000 0.000 -0.214 -0.310 -0.024 0.167 0.190 -0.095
Mike 0.286 0.000 1.000 -0.214 -0.810 -0.524 0.238 -0.429 -0.571
Mimi -0.143 -0.214 -0.214 1.000 0.571 0.071 -0.143 0.381 0.452
Bob -0.190 -0.310 -0.810 0.571 1.000 0.190 -0.095 0.476 0.833
Zaki -0.714 -0.024 -0.524 0.071 0.190 1.000 -0.381 0.119 -0.071
Burt 0.048 0.167 0.238 -0.143 -0.095 -0.381 1.000 0.595 0.452
David -0.071 0.190 -0.429 0.381 0.476 0.119 0.595 1.000 0.738
Frank -0.167 -0.095 -0.571 0.452 0.833 -0.071 0.452 0.738 1.000
Pairwise correlations in descending order
0.833 Bob and Frank Significantly positive
0.738 David and Frank Significantly positive
0.595 Burt and David Not significant
0.571 Mimi and Bob Not significant
0.476 Bob and David Not significant
0.452 Mimi and Frank Not significant
0.452 Burt and Frank Not significant
0.381 Mimi and David Not significant
0.286 Dick and Mike Not significant
0.238 Mike and Burt Not significant
0.190 Dean and David Not significant
0.190 Bob and Zaki Not significant
0.167 Dean and Burt Not significant
0.119 Zaki and David Not significant
0.071 Mimi and Zaki Not significant
0.048 Dick and Burt Not significant
0.000 Dean and Mike Not significant
-0.024 Dean and Zaki Not significant
-0.071 Dick and Dean Not significant
-0.071 Dick and David Not significant
-0.071 Zaki and Frank Not significant
-0.095 Dean and Frank Not significant
-0.095 Bob and Burt Not significant
-0.143 Dick and Mimi Not significant
-0.143 Mimi and Burt Not significant
-0.167 Dick and Frank Not significant
-0.190 Dick and Bob Not significant
-0.214 Dean and Mimi Not significant
-0.214 Mike and Mimi Not significant
-0.310 Dean and Bob Not significant
-0.381 Zaki and Burt Not significant
-0.429 Mike and David Not significant
-0.524 Mike and Zaki Not significant
-0.571 Mike and Frank Not significant
-0.714 Dick and Zaki Significantly negative
-0.810 Mike and Bob Significantly negative
COMMENT:
Overall this was a lovely tasting conducted as a partial homage to an old friend who loved Italian wines and who educated the group on the beauty of Italian wine and Barolo in particular.
Interestingly with regard to these northern Nebbiolo reds, it is generally agreed that the first two decades of the 21st century brought reliably stronger vintages than the preceding two or three and – thanks to varied, intricate topography – some sites were poised to benefit from gradual warming the the world is experiencing. The range of vintages being tasted were all ranked in the 94-95 range, suggesting that they were all ready to drink but had a good future ahead of them. This was confirmed by the tasting.
There was some discussion around the spread of individual preferences between the tasters, while agreeing that there was no wine that was considered poor. The top 3 wines also covered the span of years of the tasting with the ‘younger’ wines not being more noticeably preferred to the turn of the century bottles.
Once again a delicious tasting demonstrating not only the longevity of these wines but how approachable and enjoyable they are to drink. Thanks to Ed for teaching us about these lovely wines and our gracious host.
Return to the previous page