Identification of the Wine The Judges' Overall Ranking:
Wine H is 2009 Clos Apalta ........ 1st place
Wine A is 2014 Clos Apalta tied for 2nd place
Wine E is 2005 Clos Apalta tied for 2nd place
Wine F is 2015 Clos Apalta ........ 4th place
Wine B is 2016 Clos Apalta ........ 5th place
Wine D is 2021 Clos Apalta ........ 6th place
Wine G is 2018 Clos Apalta ........ 7th place
Wine C is 2017 Clos Apalta ........ 8th place
The Judges' Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Dean 5 4 7 6 1 8 3 2
Mike 3 4 5 1 8 7 6 2
Bob 5 6 7 3 2 4 8 1
Dick 5 3 6 8 7 1 4 2
Zaki 2 4 5 7 3 1 8 6
Mark 2 6 7 8 1 3 5 4
Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 2 5 8 6 2 4 7 1
Votes Against -> 22 27 37 33 22 24 34 17
(6 is the best possible, 48 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 = 0.2275
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.2152. 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
Mark 0.6099
Bob 0.5543
Zaki 0.3856
Dick 0.2275
Dean 0.0952
Mike -0.3832
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 H is 2009 Clos Apalta
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. tied for 2nd place Wine A is 2014 Clos Apalta
3. tied for 2nd place Wine E is 2005 Clos Apalta
4. ........ 4th place Wine F is 2015 Clos Apalta
5. ........ 5th place Wine B is 2016 Clos Apalta
6. ........ 6th place Wine D is 2021 Clos Apalta
7. ........ 7th place Wine G is 2018 Clos Apalta
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. ........ 8th place Wine C is 2017 Clos Apalta
We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-Square value is 9.556. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.215.
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:
Dean Mike Bob Dick Zaki Mark
Dean 1.000 -0.095 0.333 -0.095 -0.286 0.405
Mike -0.095 1.000 0.214 -0.143 -0.405 -0.524
Bob 0.333 0.214 1.000 -0.024 0.190 0.357
Dick -0.095 -0.143 -0.024 1.000 0.286 0.238
Zaki -0.286 -0.405 0.190 0.286 1.000 0.643
Mark 0.405 -0.524 0.357 0.238 0.643 1.000
Pairwise correlations in descending order
0.643 Zaki and Mark Significantly positive
0.405 Dean and Mark Not significant
0.357 Bob and Mark Not significant
0.333 Dean and Bob Not significant
0.286 Dick and Zaki Not significant
0.238 Dick and Mark Not significant
0.214 Mike and Bob Not significant
0.190 Bob and Zaki Not significant
-0.024 Bob and Dick Not significant
-0.095 Dean and Mike Not significant
-0.095 Dean and Dick Not significant
-0.143 Mike and Dick Not significant
-0.286 Dean and Zaki Not significant
-0.405 Mike and Zaki Not significant
-0.524 Mike and Mark Not significant
COMMENT:
Overall this was our first carmenere tasting and the feeling is that it had a distinctly Bordeaux feel.
This was a tremendous tasting of the top Chilean wine, Clos Apalta a wine known for its predominant use of the Carménère grape. This grape has known origins in the Médoc region of Bordeaux, and was also widely planted in the Graves until the vines were struck with oidium. It is almost impossible to find Carménère wines in France today, as a phylloxera plague in 1867 nearly destroyed all the vineyards of Europe, afflicting the Carménère grapevines and for many years the grape was presumed extinct.
Cuttings of Carménère were imported by Chilean growers from Bordeaux during the 19th century, where they were frequently confused with Merlot vines. They modeled their wineries after those in France and in the 1850s cuttings from Bordeaux, which included Carménère grape, were planted in the valleys around Santiago. Thanks to central Chile's minimal rainfall and the protection of the country's natural boundaries, growers produced healthier crops of Carménère, and there was no spread of phylloxera. During most of the 20th century Carménère was inadvertently collected and processed together with Merlot grapes. In 1994, Carménère was re-discovered as a distinct varietal in Chile by French ampelographist Jean Boursiquot.
In this tasting, all bottles sourced from the estate directly, we had an age range from 2005 to 2021, giving an ample opportunity to assess the wines ability to age. Also this wine, just as in Bordeaux, includes a blend of the main grape and Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot making the year to year comparisons very interesting.
The winning wine which was significantly preferred was the 2009, which uniquely had the highest amount of Carménère at 78% amongst all the wines tasted, shared only by the 2021with 75%. The next 3 wines in the tasting were the 2014, 2005 and 2015. These 3 wines all had 2 things in common. Levels of Carménère between 42-48% and Cabernet Sauvignon over 30% (30-38). In all cases the Merlot additions did not play a big role but given the similarities between Carménère and Merlot arguably it’s not needed. This wine is not produced in every vintage, but it can be considered a worthy alternative to Bordeaux, interestingly even though alcohol levels are consistently at 15% the alcohol level was not noticeable.
Return to the previous page