Report

Identification of the Wine The Judges' Overall Ranking: Wine G is 2010 Domaine Tempier La Mignone ........ 1st place Wine F is 2010 Domaine Tempier Cabassan ........ 2nd place Wine D is 2003 Domaine Tempier ........ 3rd place Wine H is 2010 Domaine Tempier La Tourtine ........ 4th place Wine E is 2005 Domaine Tempier ........ 5th place Wine B is 2010 Domaine Tempier ........ 6th place Wine C is 2007 Domaine Tempier ........ 7th place Wine A is 2010 Chateau de Pibarnon ........ 8th place

The Judges' Rankings Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Burt 6 7 8 5 2 1 3 4 Bob 3 4 5 7 8 1 6 2 Frank 7 2 4 5 3 1 6 8 Dean 8 6 4 3 2 7 1 5 Orley 7 4 3 2 5 8 1 6 Dick 3 2 7 1 5 6 8 4 Mike 8 7 2 5 6 4 1 3 Zaki 6 7 8 5 4 3 1 2 Wine -> A B C D E F G H Group Ranking -> 8 6 7 3 5 2 1 4 Votes Against -> 48 39 41 33 35 31 27 34 (8 is the best possible, 64 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 = 0.1109

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.5156. 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.

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 G is 2010 Domaine Tempier La Mignone 2. ........ 2nd place Wine F is 2010 Domaine Tempier Cabassan 3. ........ 3rd place Wine D is 2003 Domaine Tempier 4. ........ 4th place Wine H is 2010 Domaine Tempier La Tourtine 5. ........ 5th place Wine E is 2005 Domaine Tempier 6. ........ 6th place Wine B is 2010 Domaine Tempier 7. ........ 7th place Wine C is 2007 Domaine Tempier 8. ........ 8th place Wine A is 2010 Chateau de Pibarnon

We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-Square value is 6.208. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.516.

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 Dean Orley Dick Mike Zaki Burt 1.000 0.048 0.190 0.214 -0.310 -0.310 0.167 0.810 Bob 0.048 1.000 -0.024 -0.810 -0.714 -0.024 -0.024 0.095 Frank 0.190 -0.024 1.000 -0.095 -0.143 -0.071 -0.167 -0.286 Dean 0.214 -0.810 -0.095 1.000 0.786 -0.357 0.548 0.357 Orley -0.310 -0.714 -0.143 0.786 1.000 -0.119 0.452 -0.024 Dick -0.310 -0.024 -0.071 -0.357 -0.119 1.000 -0.738 -0.357 Mike 0.167 -0.024 -0.167 0.548 0.452 -0.738 1.000 0.452 Zaki 0.810 0.095 -0.286 0.357 -0.024 -0.357 0.452 1.000

Pairwise correlations in descending order

0.810 Burt and Zaki Significantly positive 0.786 Dean and Orley Significantly positive 0.548 Dean and Mike Not significant 0.452 Orley and Mike Not significant 0.452 Mike and Zaki Not significant 0.357 Dean and Zaki Not significant 0.214 Burt and Dean Not significant 0.190 Burt and Frank Not significant 0.167 Burt and Mike Not significant 0.095 Bob and Zaki Not significant 0.048 Burt and Bob Not significant -0.024 Bob and Frank Not significant -0.024 Bob and Dick Not significant -0.024 Bob and Mike Not significant -0.024 Orley and Zaki Not significant -0.071 Frank and Dick Not significant -0.095 Frank and Dean Not significant -0.119 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.143 Frank and Orley Not significant -0.167 Frank and Mike Not significant -0.286 Frank and Zaki Not significant -0.310 Burt and Orley Not significant -0.310 Burt and Dick Not significant -0.357 Dean and Dick Not significant -0.357 Dick and Zaki Not significant -0.714 Bob and Orley Significantly negative -0.738 Dick and Mike Significantly negative -0.810 Bob and Dean Significantly negative

COMMENT:

Bandol is a prestigious French wine appellation in Provence (created 1941) known for robust, age-worthy red wines dominated by the Mourvèdre grape (minimum 50% required), which thrive in the region's hot, sun-drenched coastal terroir.
Domaine Tempier was first vinified in 1951 and is the flagship wine of this appellation. In the 60’s based on major differences between parcels, they decided to vinify La Tourtine and La Migoua vines separately and later on Cabassaou as well, all of which feature in this tasting.
In terms of the Bandol Rouge which had 4 wines in this tasting it comprises 75% Mourvèdre with 14% Grenache, 9% Cinsault, 2% Carignan. The special cuvees are 80-95% Mourvèdre with the exception of Cabassaou, the winner of this tasting, which had 50% Mourvèdre, 20% Grenache, 26% Cinsault, 4% Syrah which with 15 years of age made it very approachable.
Bandol can show tannins when young however these wines which were 16 -23 years of age were in perfect condition, food friendly, (especially with the host’s famed sausage rolls) and enjoyable to drink. While there were differences in preference amongst the tasters none of the wines were significantly different from each other highlighting the overall quality and the difficulty in separating wines in a vertical tasting.