Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:23:40.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Information Content of Wine Notes: Some New Algorithms?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2013

Martin Klimmek
Martin Klimmek*
Affiliation:
Wadham College, Parks Road, Oxford. OX1 3PN, UK. email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present a framework for measuring the information content or, more subjectively, the meaningfulness of wine tasting notes. Our analysis is based on developing a summary statistic related to Theil's uncertainty coefficient. The methods we develop can be used for the comparative analysis of tasting notes against a benchmark tasting system. An analysis of the examples of real and “fake” tasting notes in Quandt (2007) illustrates the method. We argue that the categorization of wine jargon leads to informative tasting notes. (JEL Classification: A12, C65, C83, D83)

Keywords

Frankfurt's theory of “bullshit”information theoryTheil's uncertainty coefficientwine-writing
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , December 2013 , pp. 318 - 334
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

*

I thank an anonymous referee and Karl Storchmann for very helpful suggestions. I am indebted to Yang Yuxin for comments.

References

Ashenfelter, O., and Quandt, R. (1999). Analyzing a wine tasting statistically. Chance, 12, 16–20.Google Scholar
Ashenfelter, O., and Storchmann, K. (2012). Editorial: The Judgment of Princeton and other articles. Journal of Wine Economics, 7, 139–142.Google Scholar
Bruce, N. (1999). Classification and hierarchy in the discourse of wine: Émile Peynaud's The Taste of Wine. ASp: la revue du GERAS, 23–26, 149–164.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H.G. (2005). On Bullshit. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Noble, A.C., Arnold, R.A., Buechsenstein, J., Leach, E.J., Schmidt, J.O., and Stern, P.S. (1987). Modification of a standardized system of wine aroma terminology. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 38, 143–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norwich, K.H. (1991). Toward the unification of the laws of sensation: some food for thought. In Lawless, H.T. and Klein, B.P. (Eds.), Sensory Science Theory and Applications in Foods. New York: Marcel Dekker, 151–183.Google Scholar
Parr, W.V., White, K.G., and Heatherbell, D.A. (2003). The nose knows: Influence of color on perception of wine aroma. Journal of Wine Research, 14, 79–101.Google Scholar
Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., and Flannery, B.P. (2007). Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quandt, R.E. (2007). On wine bullshit: Some new software? Journal of Wine Economics, 2, 129–135.Google Scholar
Quandt, R.E. (2012). Comments on the Judgment of Princeton. Journal of Wine Economics, 7, 152–154.Google Scholar
Ramirez, C.D. (2010). Do tasting notes add value? Evidence from Napa Wines. Journal of Wine Economics, 5, 143–163.Google Scholar
Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27. Corrected reprint available at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wine & Spirit Education Trust. (2012). WSET Diploma Systematic Approach to Tasting Wine®. www.wsetglobal.com/documents/dip_satcardwine_2012_eng_new.pdf.Google Scholar
Storchmann, K. (2012). Wine economics. Journal of Wine Economics, 7, 1–33.Google Scholar
Theil, H. (1970). On the estimation of relationships involving qualitative variables. American Journal of Sociology, 76, 103–154.Google Scholar