Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T17:01:21.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wine Ratings: Seeking a Consensus among Tasters via Normalization, Approval, and Aggregation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2021

Olivier Gergaud ,
Victor Ginsburgh  and
Juan D. Moreno-Ternero
Olivier Gergaud*
Affiliation:
KEDGE Business School (Bordeaux campus), 680 Cours de la Libération, 33405 Talence Cedex, France
Victor Ginsburgh
Affiliation:
ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles and CORE, Université catholique de Louvain, 50 avenue F. Roosevelt 1050, Brussels, Belgium; e-mail: [email protected].
Juan D. Moreno-Ternero
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Carretera de Utrera, Km.1. 41013. Seville, Spain; e-mail: [email protected].
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The modern era of wine journalism has provided abundant information about wines and widespread use of numerical rating systems. A tiny difference, especially at the top of the distribution of ratings, may have striking consequences on wine sales and investment returns. This article provides a general framework to obtain a consensus among tasters’ opinions (reflected as numerical wine ratings) via three subsequent stages: normalization, approval, and aggregation. It is inspired by contributions in political science, social choice, game theory, and operations research. We apply it to the Judgment of Paris as well as to rank 2018 en-primeur Bordeaux wines, rated by five international experts. (JEL Classifications: C18, L15, L66)

Keywords

global wine scoreJudgment of Parisratings2018 en-primeur Bordeaux wineswines
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , August 2021 , pp. 321 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Association of Wine Economists

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

We thank Karl Storchmann (Editor of this Journal) and an anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions. The third author acknowledges financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (ECO2017-83069-P).

References

Albarrán, P., Crespo, J., Ortuno-Ortin, I., and Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2010). A comparison of the scientific performance of the US and the European Union at the turn of the 21st century. Scientometrics, 85(1), 329–344.10.1007/s11192-010-0223-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albarrán, P., Crespo, J., Ortuno-Ortin, I., and Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011). The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates. Scientometrics, 88, 385–397.10.1007/s11192-011-0407-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alcalde-Unzu, J., Moreno-Ternero, J., and Weber, S. (2021). The measurement of the value of a language. Centre for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 15770. Available from https://repec.cepr.org/repec/cpr/ceprdp/DP15770.pdf.Google Scholar
Alcalde-Unzu, J., and Vorsatz, M. (2009). Size approval voting. Journal of Economic Theory, 144(3), 1187–1210.10.1016/j.jet.2008.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, H., Lecocq, S., and Visser, M. (2008). The impact of gurus: Parker grades and en primeur wine prices. The Economic Journal, 118(529), F158–F173. (Reprinted in 2010 in the Journal of Wine Economics, 5(1), 22–39.)10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02147.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amerine, M., and Roessler, E. (1983). Wines: Their Sensory Evaluation. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Anderson, K., and Pinilla, V., eds. (2018). Wine Globalization: A New Comparative History. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108131766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Ashenfelter, O., and Jones, G. (2013). The demand for expert opinion: Bordeaux wine. Journal of Wine Economics, 8(3), 285–293.10.1017/jwe.2013.22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashenfelter, O., and Quandt, R. (1999). Analyzing a wine tasting statistically. Chance, 12(3), 16–20.10.1080/09332480.1999.10542152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, R. H. (2012). Reliability and consensus of experienced wine judges: Expertise, within, and between? Journal of Wine Economics, 7(1), 70–87.10.1017/jwe.2012.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, R. H. (2013). Is there consensus among wine quality ratings of prominent critics? An empirical analysis of red Bordeaux, 2004–2010. Journal of Wine Economics, 8(2), 225–234.10.1017/jwe.2013.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, R. H. (2016). The value of expert opinion in the pricing of Bordeaux wine futures. Journal of Wine Economics, 11(2), 261–288.10.1017/jwe.2016.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergantiños, G., and Moreno-Ternero, J. (2015). The axiomatic approach to the problem of sharing the revenue from museum passes. Games and Economic Behavior, 89, 78–92.10.1016/j.geb.2014.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergantiños, G., and Moreno-Ternero, J. (2020). Sharing the revenues from broadcasting sport events. Management Science, 66(6), 2417–2431.10.1287/mnsc.2019.3313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleichrodt, B., Herrero, C., and Pinto, J. (2002). A proposal to solve the comparability problem in cost-utility analysis. Journal of Health Economics, 21(3), 397–403.10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00136-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bodington, J. (2017). The distribution of ratings assigned to blind replicates. Journal of Wine Economics, 12(4), 363–369.10.1017/jwe.2017.16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodington, J. (2020). Rate the raters: A note on wine judge consistency. Journal of Wine Economics, 15(4), 363–369.10.1017/jwe.2020.30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borda, J.-C. (1784). Memoire sur les Elections au Scrutin. Paris: Histoire de l'Academie Royale des Sciences.Google Scholar
Brams, S., and Fishburn, P. (1978). Approval voting. American Political Science Review, 72(3), 831–847.10.2307/1955105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabannes, Y. (2004). Participatory budgeting: A significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environment and Urbanization, 16(1), 27–46.10.1177/095624780401600104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, J. (2014). Quantifying randomness versus consensus in wine quality ratings. Journal of Wine Economics, 9(2), 202–213.10.1017/jwe.2014.8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardebat, J., and Paroissien, E. (2015). Standardizing expert wine scores: An application for Bordeaux en primeur. Journal of Wine Economics, 10(3), 329–348.10.1017/jwe.2015.32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (2006). The Paris 1976 wine tasting revisited once more: Comparing ratings of consistent and inconsistent tasters. Journal of Wine Economics, 1(2), 125–140.10.1017/S193143610000016XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, J., Gómez, M., and Lamadrid, A. (2011). Wine in your knapsack? Journal of Wine Economics, 6(1), 83–110.10.1017/S1931436100001073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyr, D., Kwong, L., and Sun, L. (2017). An examination of tail dependence in Bordeaux futures prices and Parker ratings. Journal of Wine Economics, 12(3), 252–266.10.1017/jwe.2017.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyr, D., Kwong, L., and Sun, L. (2019). Who will replace Parker? A copula function analysis of Bordeaux en primeur wine raters. Journal of Wine Economics, 14(2), 133–144.10.1017/jwe.2019.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodgson, C. L. (1873). A Discussion of the Various Methods of Procedure in Conducting Elections. Princeton: Princeton University Library.Google Scholar
Fogarty, J., and Sadler, R. (2014). To save or savor: A review of approaches for measuring wine as an investment. Journal of Wine Economics, 9(3), 225–248.10.1017/jwe.2014.27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friberg, R., and Grönqvist, E. (2012). Do expert reviews affect the demand for wine? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(1), 193–211.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. (1973). Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result. Econometrica, 41(4), 587–601.10.2307/1914083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburgh, V., Moreno-Ternero, J., and Weber, S. (2017). Ranking languages in the European Union: Before and after Brexit. European Economic Review, 93(C), 139–151.10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.01.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburgh, V., and Zang, I. (2003). The museum pass game and its value. Games and Economic Behavior, 43, 322–325.10.1016/S0899-8256(03)00013-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburgh, V., and Zang, I. (2012). Shapley ranking of wines. Journal of Wine Economics, 7(2), 169–180.10.1017/jwe.2012.35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasser, G. (1959). Game theory and cumulative voting for corporate directors. Management Science, 5(2), 151–156.10.1287/mnsc.5.2.151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, A., Krishnaswamy, S., Sakshuwong, S., and Aitamurto, T. (2019). Knapsack voting for participatory budgeting. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 7(2), 1–27.10.1145/3340230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrero, C., and Moreno-Ternero, J. (2009). Estimating production costs in the economic evaluation of health care programs. Health Economics, 18(1), 21–35.10.1002/hec.1345CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodgson, R. (2008). An examination of judge reliability at a major U.S. wine competition. Journal of Wine Economics, 3(2), 105–113.10.1017/S1931436100001152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulkower, N. (2009). The judgment of Paris according to Borda. Journal of Wine Research, 20(3), 171–182.10.1080/09571260903451029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, E. (1981). To save or savor: The rate of return to storing wine. Journal of Political Economy, 89(3), 584–592.10.1086/260988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindley, D. V. (2006). Analysis of a wine tasting. Journal of Wine Economics, 1(1), 33–41.10.1017/S1931436100000079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luxen, M. (2018). Consensus between ratings of red Bordeaux wines by prominent critics and correlations with prices 2004–2010 and 2011–2016: Ashton revisited and expanded. Journal of Wine Economics, 13(1), 83–91.10.1017/jwe.2018.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, D. (2015). Seeking the veritas about the vino: Fine wine ratings as wine knowledge. Journal of Wine Research, 26(4), 319–335.10.1080/09571264.2015.1083953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, D. (2020). Erring experts? A critique of wine ratings as hedonic scaling. Journal of Wine Economics, 15(4), 386–393.10.1017/jwe.2020.42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martello, S., and Toth, P. (1990). Knapsack Problems. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Masset, P., Weisskopf, J., and Cossutta, M. (2015). Wine tasters, ratings, and en primeur prices. Journal of Wine Economics, 10(1), 75–107.10.1017/jwe.2015.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno-Ternero, J. (2007). On the design of equal-opportunity policies. Investigaciones Económicas, 31(3), 351–374.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. (1998). Equality of Opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674042872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satterthwaite, M. (1975). Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 10(2), 187–217.10.1016/0022-0531(75)90050-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, J., and MacRae, D. (1962). Game theory and cumulative voting in Illinois: 1902–1954. American Political Science Review, 56(4), 936–946.10.2307/1952795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapley, L. (1953). A value for n-person games. In Kuhn, H. W. and Tucker, A. W. (eds.), Contribution to the Theory of Games, vol. II, 307–317. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stuen, E., Miller, J., and Stone, R. (2015). An analysis of wine critic consensus: A study of Washington and California wines. Journal of Wine Economics, 10(1), 47–61.10.1017/jwe.2015.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, G. (2005). Judgment of Paris: California vs. France and the Historic 1976 Paris Tasting That Revolutionized Wine. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Weber, R. (1995). Approval voting. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(1), 39–49.10.1257/jep.9.1.39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, H. P. (1974). An axiomatization of Borda's rule. Journal of Economic Theory, 9(1), 43–52.10.1016/0022-0531(74)90073-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Gergaud et al. supplementary material

Gergaud et al. supplementary material

Download Gergaud et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 58 KB