Identification of the Wine The Judges' Overall Ranking:
Wine H is 2001 Cote Roti La Landonne ........ 1st place
Wine D is 2005 Cote Rotie La Turque ........ 2nd place
Wine C is 2000 Cote Roti La Turque tied for 3rd place
Wine E is 2005 Cote Roti La Landonne tied for 3rd place
Wine B is 2005 Cote Roti La Mouline ........ 5th place
Wine A is 2001 Cote Roti La Turque ........ 6th place
Wine F is 2000 Cote Roti La Mouline tied for 7th place
Wine G is 2001 Cote Roti La Mouline tied for 7th place
The Judges' Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Bob 1 6 7 2 4 5 8 3
Dick 5 3 2 4 7 8 6 1
Orley 6 5 7 4 3 8 2 1
Zaki 6 7 5 3 2 4 8 1
Mike 6 3 1 7 2 8 4 5
Frank 5 2 6 1 8 3 7 4
Burt 6 5 2 1 4 7 8 3
Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 6 5 3 2 3 7 7 1
Votes Against -> 35 31 30 22 30 43 43 18
(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 = 0.2692
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0676. Most analysts would say that since this probability is less than 0.1, the judges' preferences appear to be 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
Burt 0.7785
Dick 0.5868
Zaki 0.4762
Bob 0.2857
Orley 0.2619
Frank 0.1190
Mike 0.0241
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 2001 Cote Roti La Landonne
2. ........ 2nd place Wine D is 2005 Cote Rotie La Turque
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. tied for 3rd place Wine C is 2000 Cote Roti La Turque
4. tied for 3rd place Wine E is 2005 Cote Roti La Landonne
5. ........ 5th place Wine B is 2005 Cote Roti La Mouline
6. ........ 6th place Wine A is 2001 Cote Roti La Turque
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. tied for 7th place Wine F is 2000 Cote Roti La Mouline
8. tied for 7th place Wine G is 2001 Cote Roti La Mouline
We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-Square value is 13.190. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.068.
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:
Bob Dick Orley Zaki Mike Frank Burt
Bob 1.000 0.048 0.048 0.524 -0.524 0.333 0.333
Dick 0.048 1.000 0.262 0.143 0.333 0.262 0.619
Orley 0.048 0.262 1.000 0.262 0.167 -0.238 0.095
Zaki 0.524 0.143 0.262 1.000 -0.143 0.071 0.595
Mike -0.524 0.333 0.167 -0.143 1.000 -0.595 0.214
Frank 0.333 0.262 -0.238 0.071 -0.595 1.000 0.286
Burt 0.333 0.619 0.095 0.595 0.214 0.286 1.000
Pairwise correlations in descending order
0.619 Dick and Burt Not significant
0.595 Zaki and Burt Not significant
0.524 Bob and Zaki Not significant
0.333 Bob and Frank Not significant
0.333 Bob and Burt Not significant
0.333 Dick and Mike Not significant
0.286 Frank and Burt Not significant
0.262 Dick and Orley Not significant
0.262 Dick and Frank Not significant
0.262 Orley and Zaki Not significant
0.214 Mike and Burt Not significant
0.167 Orley and Mike Not significant
0.143 Dick and Zaki Not significant
0.095 Orley and Burt Not significant
0.071 Zaki and Frank Not significant
0.048 Bob and Dick Not significant
0.048 Bob and Orley Not significant
-0.143 Zaki and Mike Not significant
-0.238 Orley and Frank Not significant
-0.524 Bob and Mike Not significant
-0.595 Mike and Frank Not significant
COMMENT:
The Domaine Guigal located in the ancient village of Ampuis is an icon of the Rhone Valley vineyard. It produces, among other things, three emblematic vintages in the Côte Rôtie appellation, called the La-La-La trilogy, a contraction of La Mouline, La Turque, La Landonne. They are among the most sought-after wines in the region.
La Mouline is made from vines almost 75 years old, using traditional Côte Rôtie grape varieties: 89% Syrah and 11% Viognier. La Turque comes from younger vines, around 25 years old, composed of 93% Syrah and 7% Viognier. La Landonne is the only single-varietal cuvée, 100% Syrah aged around 35 years
This tasting was marvelous and somewhat uniquely it was a repeat of a tasting that was done 5 years earlier under Covid.
What is interesting is the evolution between the identical tasting conducted 5 years ago and this. At that tasting the wines were hard to separate with the 3 100 point 2005 wines being at the bottom of ranking, possibly due to being too young?
There was an unusual amount of agreement in terms of the preferred wines with the Kendall W being 0.2692 confirming the significance of the result.
The wine that was the winner was the La Landonne 2001. The 2005’s all improved their performance from an average rank of 6.3 to 3.3. Perhaps more interestingly La Turque was the overall preferred cuvée with the 2000 doing well in both tastings.
All the wines were exceptional, except for the 2001 La Mouline that was felt to be corked. These are not inexpensive wines but they truly are delicious and any an opportunity to enjoy them should not be missed.
Return to the previous page