Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T23:45:03.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Graphical and Statistical Analysis of the Judgment of Princeton Wine Tasting*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2013

Daniel L. Ward*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, 121 Northville Road, Bridgeton, NJ 08302. Email: Dward@AESOP.Rutgers.edu.

Abstract

The wine ratings from the a wine tasting comparing wines from a young wine region, New Jersey, to wines from Bordeaux was held June 8, 2012 in Princeton, NJ. Graphical analysis revealed substantial differences in the use of the rating scale between judges, both in the centroids of their scores and the variability in their scores. Analysis of variance failed to detect any significant differences in the white wines regardless of data transformation or statistical model. Analysis of raw data from the red wines suggested significant differences, but severely violated ANOVA model assumptions and was invalid. Rank transformation, standardization, a model with heterogeneous variances, and Friedman's test all indicated no significant differences among red wines. Based on the confidence interval on the difference between all New Jersey and all Bordeaux wines in each flight it was estimated that differences larger than 1.5 on the 20-point scale would have been declared significantly different for either white or red wines. Therefore, the tasting was powerful enough that any meaningful differences between the wines from the two origins would have been detected. (JEL Classification: C19, Q19)

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Thanks to the editor, Karl Storchmann, and an anonymous reviewer who provided helpful editorial advice.

References

Ashenfelter, O. and Storchmann, K. (2012). Editorial: the Judgment of Princeton and other papers. Journal of Wine Economics, 7(2), 139142.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G.A., Stroup, W.W., Wolfinger, R.D. and Schabenberger, O. (2006). SAS® for Mixed Models, 2nd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Quandt, R.E. (2012). Tasting Report No. 161. Liquid Assets. Online at http://www.liquidasset.com/report161.html (last accessed August 22, 2012).Google Scholar
Quandt, R.E. (2006). Measurement and inference in wine tasting. Journal of Wine Economics, 1(1), 730.Google Scholar
Taber, G. (2006). Judgment of Paris: California vs. France and the Historic 1976 Paris Tasting That Revolutionized Wine. New York, NY: Scribner.Google Scholar