Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:02:55.656Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

804 Tastes: Evidence on Preferences, Randomness, and Value from Double-Blind Wine Tastings*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2012

Jeffrey C. Bodington
Jeffrey C. Bodington*
Affiliation:
Bodington & Company, 50 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Results for a total of 804 double-blind tastes by experienced tasters during nine tasting events are reported. T-test results reject the hypothesis that flight-position bias affects results. The distribution of ranks for a wine is a mixture distribution, and tests concerning the variance of that mixture distribution do not isolate the variance due to the randomness mixture component alone. T-statistics for the mean ranks of high- and low-ranking wines are over several standard deviations from a random expectation. T-tests show that the statistical significance of the difference between wine ranks is positively related to the difference in their mean ranks. At a 95% level of significance, the difference in ranks between the first- and second-place wines appears to be significant in 33% of tastings. At 95%, the difference in ranks between the first- and last-place wines appears to be significant in 100% of tastings. Monte Carlo simulation shows that much of those differences could be illusory and due to ranking procedures that lead to Type I errors. While the mean correlation coefficient between price per bottle and mean preference is a weakly positive 0.23, this may not indicate an inefficient market. (JEL Classifications: A10, C00, C12, D12)

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , November 2012 , pp. 181 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists, 2012

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

*

I am grateful to the late professor George Kuznets at the University of California at Berkeley for his patience with me in statistics classes, Professor Emeritus Bert Mason of California State University at Fresno for his ideas and guidance during fieldwork and to an anonymous reviewer for insightful suggestions.

References

Almenberg, J. and Dreber, A. (2009). When does the price affect the taste? Results from a wine experiment. American Association of Wine Economists AAWE Working Paper no. 35.Google Scholar
Amerine, M.A. and Roessler, E.B. (1976). Wines: Their Sensory Evaluation. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Ashenfelter, O. (2006). Tales from the crypt: Bruce Kaiser tells us about the trials and tribulations of a wine judge. Journal of Wine Economics, 1, 173–175.Google Scholar
Brown, M.B. and Forsythe, A.B. (1974). Robust tests for equality of variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 364–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castriota, S., Curzi, D. and Delmastro, M. (2012). Tasters' bias in wine guides' quality evaluations. AAWE Working Paper no. 98.Google Scholar
Cliff, M.A. and King, M.C. (1997). Application of eggshell plots for evaluation of judges at wine competitions. Journal of Wine Research, 8, 75–80.Google Scholar
Goldstein, R., Almenberg, J., Dreber, A., Emerson, J., Herschkowitsch, A. and Katz, J. (2008). Do more expensive wines taste better? Evidence from a large sample of blind tastings. Journal of Wine Economics, 3(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Hodgson, R.T. (2008). An examination of judge reliability at a major U.S. wine competition. Journal of Wine Economics, 3, 105–113.Google Scholar
Lecocq, S. and Visser, M. (2006). What determines wine prices: Objective vs. sensory characteristics. Journal of Wine Economics, 1, 42–56.Google Scholar
Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In: Olkin, I. (ed.), Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. 278–292.Google Scholar
Pecotich, A. and Ward, S. (2010). Taste testing of wine by expert and novice consumers in the presence of variations in quality, brand and country of origin cues. AAWE Working Paper no. 66.Google Scholar
Quandt, R.E. (2012). Winetaster on 6/08/12 with 9 judges and 10 wines based on grades. Result for the 2012 Judgment of Princeton, http://wine–economics.org/WineTastings/Judgment_of_Princeton_no_comments.html.Google Scholar
Sample, I. (2011). Expensive wine and cheap plonk taste the same to most people. The Guardian, April 13, www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/14/expensive-wine-cheap-plonk-taste.Google Scholar
Shaw, L. (2011). Industry attacks psychologist for flawed taste. The Drinks Business, April 18, www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2011/04/industry-attacks-psychologist-for-flawed-taste-test/.Google Scholar
Weil, R.L. (2001). Parker v. Prial: The death of the vintage chart. Chance, 14(4), 27–31.Google Scholar
Weil, R.L. (2005). Analysis of reserve and regular bottlings: Why pay for a difference only the critics claim to notice? Chance, 18(3), 9–15.Google Scholar