Identification of the Wine The Judges' Overall Ranking:
Wine B is 2013 Leroy Chambertin tied for 1st place
Wine G is 2005 Musigny Domaine Com tied for 1st place
Wine E is 2001 Leroy Richbourg ........ 3rd place
Wine H is 2001 Leroy Clos de la Ro ........ 4th place
Wine A is 2017 Occidental Elizabet ........ 5th place
Wine C is 2019 Kistler Laguna ........ 6th place
Wine D is 2017 Occidental SWK tied for 7th place
Wine F is 2018 Kistler Laguna tied for 7th place
The Judges' Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H
OrleyA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bob E 2 1 6 8 7 3 4 5
Zaki H 2 4 5 3 1 8 6 7
FrankL 8 5 6 3 7 4 2 1
Burt M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dean M 6 5 2 8 1 7 3 4
RichaQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 5 1 6 7 3 7 1 4
Votes Against -> 18 15 19 22 16 22 15 17
(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 = 0.0272
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 1.0000. 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
Zaki H -0.6587
OrleyA NaN
Dean M -0.2530
Bob E -0.4910
Burt M NaN
FrankL -0.6868
RichaQ NaN
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. tied for 1st place Wine B is 2013 Leroy Chambertin
2. tied for 1st place Wine G is 2005 Musigny Domaine Comte Georges de Vouge
3. ........ 3rd place Wine E is 2001 Leroy Richbourg
4. ........ 4th place Wine H is 2001 Leroy Clos de la Roche
5. ........ 5th place Wine A is 2017 Occidental Elizabeth
6. ........ 6th place Wine C is 2019 Kistler Laguna
7. tied for 7th place Wine D is 2017 Occidental SWK
8. tied for 7th place Wine F is 2018 Kistler Laguna
We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-Square value is -125.952. The probability that this could happen by chance is 1.000.
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:
OrleyA Bob E Zaki H FrankL Burt M Dean M RichaQ
OrleyA NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Bob E NaN 1.000 -0.238 -0.167 NaN -0.214 NaN
Zaki H NaN -0.238 1.000 -0.690 NaN 0.167 NaN
FrankL NaN -0.167 -0.690 1.000 NaN -0.190 NaN
Burt M NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Dean M NaN -0.214 0.167 -0.190 NaN 1.000 NaN
RichaQ NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Pairwise correlations in descending order
NaN OrleyA and Bob E Not significant
NaN OrleyA and Zaki H Not significant
NaN OrleyA and FrankL Not significant
NaN OrleyA and Burt M Not significant
NaN OrleyA and Dean M Not significant
NaN OrleyA and RichaQ Not significant
-0.167 Bob E and FrankL Not significant
-0.238 Bob E and Zaki H Not significant
NaN Bob E and Burt M Not significant
-0.214 Bob E and Dean M Not significant
NaN Bob E and RichaQ Not significant
-0.690 Zaki H and FrankL Significantly negative
NaN Zaki H and Burt M Not significant
0.167 Zaki H and Dean M Not significant
NaN Zaki H and RichaQ Not significant
NaN FrankL and Burt M Not significant
-0.190 FrankL and Dean M Not significant
NaN FrankL and RichaQ Not significant
NaN Burt M and Dean M Not significant
NaN Burt M and RichaQ Not significant
NaN Dean M and RichaQ Not significant
COMMENT:
This was a superb tasting of high quality, highly rated wines made possible by the generosity of our host, perhaps one of the few people who could put this selection together. The scores shown in the tables are only partial due to a saving error by the invigilator, but these comments reflect the totality of the results which were available at the time of the tasting. The primary goal of the tasting was to assess whether the Californian wines of Kistler could stand up to the burgundy royalty, and the total votes against for each group were almost identical, 127 vs 125, showing that indeed they could. The individual rankings of the wines showed a high degree of diversity which reflected the preference of each taster for the specific characteristics of the wines which, while being universally excellent, had distinct characteristics; as one of our group suggested on seeing the range, “A random walk through Pinot Noir”. The top ranked wine was the Leroy Richebourg 2001, hardly a great surprise, with votes against of 26, and the range of votes for all the wines went from 26 to 36, a remarkably tight range reflecting the overall high quality of the wines. Interestingly, the relative youth of the Californian wines, which were on average almost 13 years younger, seems to have little impact on the preferences. This suggests that perhaps the Californian wines were at their optimal maturity versus the older French wines, although all had good levels of acidity, so time will tell if they continue to improve.
Return to the previous page