Identification of the Wine The Judges' Overall Ranking:
Wine E is 2009 Dominus ........ 1st place
Wine F is 2013 Dominus ........ 2nd place
Wine D is 1997 Dominus ........ 3rd place
Wine A is 2010 Dominus ........ 4th place
Wine B is 2007 Dominus ........ 5th place
Wine C is 1996 Dominus tied for 6th place
Wine G is 2002 Dominus tied for 6th place
The Judges' Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G
Dean 7 4 5 3 2 1 6
Mike 1 6 7 3 5 2 4
Frank 1 2 4 5 3 7 6
Orley 7 6 1 4 3 2 5
Bob 5 6 7 1 3 2 4
Dick 1 5 6 4 3 7 2
Zaki 6 1 2 7 4 3 5
Wine -> A B C D E F G
Group Ranking -> 4 5 6 3 1 2 6
Votes Against -> 28 30 32 27 23 24 32
(7 is the best possible, 49 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 = 0.0569
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.8808. 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
Dean 0.2364
Bob 0.1071
Mike -0.0901
Orley -0.2143
Zaki -0.5714
Frank -0.5766
Dick -0.6071
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 2009 Dominus
2. ........ 2nd place Wine F is 2013 Dominus
3. ........ 3rd place Wine D is 1997 Dominus
4. ........ 4th place Wine A is 2010 Dominus
5. ........ 5th place Wine B is 2007 Dominus
6. tied for 6th place Wine C is 1996 Dominus
7. tied for 6th place Wine G is 2002 Dominus
We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-Square value is 2.388. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.881.
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 0.753 for significance at the 0.05 level, and must exceed 0.676 for significance at the 0.10 level.
Correlation Array for the tasting is:
Dean Mike Frank Orley Bob Dick Zaki
Dean 1.000 -0.036 -0.464 0.571 0.607 -0.643 0.214
Mike -0.036 1.000 -0.107 -0.393 0.571 0.357 -0.679
Frank -0.464 -0.107 1.000 -0.571 -0.536 0.464 0.071
Orley 0.571 -0.393 -0.571 1.000 0.107 -0.714 0.321
Bob 0.607 0.571 -0.536 0.107 1.000 0.000 -0.607
Dick -0.643 0.357 0.464 -0.714 0.000 1.000 -0.643
Zaki 0.214 -0.679 0.071 0.321 -0.607 -0.643 1.000
Pairwise correlations in descending order
0.607 Dean and Bob Not significant
0.571 Dean and Orley Not significant
0.571 Mike and Bob Not significant
0.464 Frank and Dick Not significant
0.357 Mike and Dick Not significant
0.321 Orley and Zaki Not significant
0.214 Dean and Zaki Not significant
0.107 Orley and Bob Not significant
0.071 Frank and Zaki Not significant
0.000 Bob and Dick Not significant
-0.036 Dean and Mike Not significant
-0.107 Mike and Frank Not significant
-0.393 Mike and Orley Not significant
-0.464 Dean and Frank Not significant
-0.536 Frank and Bob Not significant
-0.571 Frank and Orley Not significant
-0.607 Bob and Zaki Not significant
-0.643 Dean and Dick Not significant
-0.643 Dick and Zaki Not significant
-0.679 Mike and Zaki Significantly negative
-0.714 Orley and Dick Significantly negative
COMMENT:
The Dominus estate, first known as the Napanook vineyard, dates back to the mid 19th century, with its vineyards likely planted around 1836 by founder George C Yount. Christian Moueix looking for a Californian winery identified Dominus Estate as the pick of the bunch and entered into partnership in 1982 with the then-owners Robin Lail and Marcia Smith before becoming the sole owner in 1995.
Overall this was a marvelous tasting of somewhat old school classic style of Napa Cabernet Sauvignon wines. they were extremely enjoyable. For most of the tasters this was the first time they have enjoyed a vertical of this winery. They were considered atypical for today’s Napa wines with more restrained fruit and an almost Bordeaux style. It is a food friendly style that appears to be capable of further aging, given that the wines apart from a slight difference in color showed little signs of age. While there was no significant difference between these wines it’s worth noting that the top two wines were individually rated 99 and 100 points. There is a second wine Napanook and a third called Othello.
The winery is often used in blind tasting against Bordeaux wines, Dominus’ grand vin – a variable blend of Cabernet Sauvignon, Petit Verdot and Cabernet Franc – is born of the estate’s unique volcanic terroir, 25-year-old vines and commitment to authentic Bordeaux-style winemaking practices. The production at 7,000 cases also puts it in a similar size to mid sized top Bordeaux chateau’s with pricing that is reasonable when compared to some of the more rarified pricing from comparable boutique Napa wineries.
Return to the previous page