WINETASTER ON 05/16/02 WITH 5 JUDGES AND 7 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2002 Richard E. Quandt

FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 5 Number of Wines = 7

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:

Wine A is Caymus Special Selection 1992 tied for 3rd place Wine B is 1997 ........ 7th place Wine C is 1996 ........ 5th place Wine D is 1988 ........ 6th place Wine E is 1998 ........ 1st place Wine F is 1994 ........ 2nd place Wine G is 1987 tied for 3rd place

The Judges's Rankings

Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G Malcolm 6. 5. 3. 7. 2. 1. 4. Tom 7. 5. 6. 4. 1. 3. 2. Manny 2. 3. 6. 7. 1. 4. 5. Hal 3. 7. 5. 1. 2. 4. 6. Bob 4. 7. 3. 6. 1. 2. 5.

Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G

Group Ranking -> 3 7 5 6 1 2 3 Votes Against -> 22 27 23 25 7 14 22

( 5 is the best possible, 35 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 = 0.4229

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0483. 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

Name of Person Correlation R Bob 0.6847 Malcolm 0.4505 Tom 0.3214 Manny 0.1261 Hal 0.0000

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 E is 1998 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine F is 1994 3. tied for 3rd place Wine A is Caymus Special Selection 1992 4. tied for 3rd place Wine G is 1987 5. ........ 5th place Wine C is 1996 6. ........ 6th place Wine D is 1988 --------------------------------------------------- 7. ........ 7th place Wine B is 1997 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 12.6857. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0483 We now undertake a more detailed examination of the pair-wise rank correla- tions 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 0.79 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.71 for significance at the 0.1 level Malcolm Tom Manny Malcolm 1.000 0.500 0.286 Tom 0.500 1.000 0.143 Manny 0.286 0.143 1.000 Hal -0.179 0.143 0.000 Bob 0.786 0.357 0.393 Hal Bob Malcolm -0.179 0.786 Tom 0.143 0.357 Manny 0.000 0.393 Hal 1.000 0.357 Bob 0.357 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.786 Malcolm and Bob Significantly positive 0.500 Malcolm and Tom Not significant 0.393 Manny and Bob Not significant 0.357 Tom and Bob Not significant 0.357 Hal and Bob Not significant 0.286 Malcolm and Manny Not significant 0.143 Tom and Hal Not significant 0.143 Tom and Manny Not significant 0.000 Manny and Hal Not significant -0.179 Malcolm and Hal Not significant

COMMENTS: This wine tasting was held in Bermuda, by our Bermuda member Bob. These wines were all in excellent shape and tasting well, including the youngest. In fact, the very youngest, the 1998, had a stunning score of three first place and two second place votes, which was as close to a perfect score as many of us have seen. Interestingly, it was among the vintages least favored by Parker. The 1998 had quintessential Caymus characteristics: full body, blackcurrant, toasty oak and spicy quality. All the wines to one extent or another, exhibited similar characteristics, but the 1998 was overwhelming. This tasting seems to confirm that Caymus Special Selection is an outstanding Cabernet and one that can be drunk young.

Return to previous page