Skip to content
Have an account?
Login
or
Register
  • About
    • People
    • Fellows
    • Tastings
    • In the News
    • Awards
      • Christophe Baron Prize
      • AAWE Scholarships
      • AAWE Awards of Merits
    • Downloads
    • Contacts & Copyright
  • Journal
    • Online Journal Member Access
    • Online Journal Library Access
    • Editors
    • JWE – All Issues
    • Submission Guidelines
  • Working Papers
  • Meetings
    • 2023 Stellenbosch
    • 2022 Tbilisi
    • 2019 Vienna
    • 2018 Ithaca
    • 2017 Padua
    • 2016 Bordeaux
    • 2015 Mendoza
    • 2014 Walla Walla
    • 2013 Stellenbosch
    • 2012 Princeton
    • 2011 Bolzano
    • 2010 Davis
    • 2009 Reims
    • 2008 Portland
    • 2007 Trier
  • Membership
Menu
  • About
    • People
    • Fellows
    • Tastings
    • In the News
    • Awards
      • Christophe Baron Prize
      • AAWE Scholarships
      • AAWE Awards of Merits
    • Downloads
    • Contacts & Copyright
  • Journal
    • Online Journal Member Access
    • Online Journal Library Access
    • Editors
    • JWE – All Issues
    • Submission Guidelines
  • Working Papers
  • Meetings
    • 2023 Stellenbosch
    • 2022 Tbilisi
    • 2019 Vienna
    • 2018 Ithaca
    • 2017 Padua
    • 2016 Bordeaux
    • 2015 Mendoza
    • 2014 Walla Walla
    • 2013 Stellenbosch
    • 2012 Princeton
    • 2011 Bolzano
    • 2010 Davis
    • 2009 Reims
    • 2008 Portland
    • 2007 Trier
  • Membership
DONATE
  • Data
  • Jobs & Programs
  • Data
  • Jobs & Programs
Home
»
JWE-Articles
»
Journal of Wine Economics Volume 12 | 2017 | No. 4 | Selected Proceedings
»
The Distribution of Ratings Assigned to Blind Replicates

The Distribution of Ratings Assigned to Blind Replicates

Jeffrey Bodington
JEL Clasification: A10, C10, C00, C12, D12
Pages: 363-369
Abstract

The inability of many wine judges to achieve perfect consistency by assigning the same rating to the same wine in a blind tasting is well established. Results for four wine tastings that include blind replicates are examined in this article. Although perfection is rare, the probability distri- butions of those results show that wine judges do tend to assign closer ratings to replicates than is likely due to chance alone. Approximately one-third of judges assign ratings that are within one rank of perfect consistency, and two-thirds assign ratings within two ranks of perfect con- sistency. This finding is sensitive to judges’ capabilities, the mechanics of the tasting protocol, and the extent to which the replicate is different from other wines in the tasting. Much wine- related research to date takes judges’ individual ratings as deterministic, yet these results show that those ratings are stochastic. These results yield a probability distribution that may guide future research concerning the uses and economic implications of wine ratings.

Subscribe to our Email List

You can cancel your subscription at any time.
SUBSCRIBE HERE

Contact

AAWE
Economics Department
New York University
19 W. 4th Street, 6FL
New York, NY 10012, U.S.A.
Tel: (212) 992-8083
Fax: (212) 995-4186
E-Mail: karl.storchmann@nyu.edu

AAWE

Journal

Working Papers as a List

Membership

Videos

LINKS

Fifthsense

JWE at Cambridge University Press

Liquid Assets

Stuart Pigott

Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Policy

Cookies Policy

Twitter Facebook-f Youtube

© AAWE 2021 - All rights reserved