The Value of Expert Opinion in the Pricing of Bordeaux Wine Futures

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Ashton
Keyword(s):  
Research Design ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Futures Market ◽  
Wine Quality ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Expert Opinions ◽  
Quality Ratings ◽  
Wine Experts ◽  
Jel Classifications

AbstractThe value of expert opinion for establishing prices in the Bordeaux futures market is analyzed. The expert opinions examined are the wine quality ratings provided by two of the world's foremost wine experts, Robert Parker and Jancis Robinson, for more than 1,700 red Bordeaux wines over the period 2004–2012. The results show that the experts' ratings have both a statistically and practically significant impact on prices after controlling for the effects of other known determinants of price. Thus, expert opinion has significant value in this setting. The results further show that although Parker's impact on prices is significantly greater than Robinson's, combining the quality ratings of both experts has a significantly greater impact than Parker's ratings alone. As hypothesized, the strength of the results differs for wines produced in different regions of Bordeaux because of differences in the availability of other quality-related information. All results are robust to several alternative sample specifications and other research design choices. (JEL Classifications: C52, G13, L11, L15, M21)

scholarly journals Predicting Italian Wine Quality from Weather Data and Expert Ratings

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 234-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Corsi ◽  
Orley Ashenfelter
Keyword(s):  
Probit Model ◽  
Weather Conditions ◽  
Ordered Probit ◽  
Weather Data ◽  
Ordered Probit Model ◽  
Wine Quality ◽  
Italian Wine ◽  
Quality Ratings ◽  
Expert Ratings ◽  
Jel Classifications

AbstractIn this paper we estimate how a variety of subjective measures of quality taken from the published opinions of several experts on Italian wines (Barolo and Barbaresco) are determined by the weather conditions during the relevant season, in order to assess their reliability. Since these measures of quality are only ordinal, we estimate their determinants using an ordered probit model. The method provides measures of the determinants of vintage quality ratings and suggestions on the reliability of each expert. (JEL Classifications: D12, Q11, Q13)

Quantifying Randomness Versus Consensus in Wine Quality Ratings

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Cao
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Simulation Study ◽  
Mixed Model ◽  
Model Fit ◽  
Direct Measure ◽  
Wine Quality ◽  
Excellent Model ◽  
Quality Ratings ◽  
Jel Classifications ◽  
Direct Quantification

AbstractThere has been ongoing interest in studying wine judges' performance in evaluating wines. Most of the studies have reached a similar conclusion: a significant lack of consensus exists in wine quality ratings. However, a few studies, to the author's knowledge, have provided direct quantification of how much consensus (as opposed to randomness) exists in wine ratings. In this paper, a permutation-based mixed model is proposed to quantify randomness versus consensus in wine ratings. Specifically, wine ratings under the condition of randomness are generated with a permutation method, and wine ratings under the condition of consensus can be produced by sorting the ratings for each judge. Then the observed wine ratings are modeled as a mixture of ratings under randomness and ratings under consensus. This study shows that the model can provide excellent model fit, which indicates that wine ratings, indeed, consist of a mixture of randomness and consensus. A direct measure is easily computed to quantify randomness versus consensus in wine ratings. The method is demonstrated with data analysis from a major wine competition and a simulation study. (JEL Classifications: C10, C13, C15)

scholarly journals Wine Tasters, Ratings, and En Primeur Prices

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Masset ◽  
Jean-Philippe Weisskopf ◽  
Mathieu Cossutta
Keyword(s):  
Price Increase ◽  
Wine Quality ◽  
Wine Experts ◽  
Strong Consensus ◽  
Jel Classifications

AbstractThis paper examines the ratings of 12 influential wine critics on the Bordeaux en primeur market over the vintages 2003–2012. We hypothesize that wine experts differ significantly in their rating approach and influence on prices. We find that European critics are less transparent and in general more severe in their scoring than their American counterparts. Experts also appear to reach a relatively strong consensus on overall wine quality but have more diverse opinions on wines that achieve a surprising level of quality given the vintage, the ranking, or the appellation from which they originate. Our evidence also suggests that Robert Parker and Jean-Marc Quarin are the most influential critics, as a 10% surprise in their scores leads to a price increase of around 7%. We further find that their impact is higher for appellations and estates that are not covered by the official 1855 classification and for the best vintages. (JEL Classifications: C60, G11, Q11)

Wine Competitions: Reevaluating the Gold Standard

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Bitter
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Gold Medal ◽  
Paired Comparisons ◽  
Wine Quality ◽  
Medal Award ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Jel Classifications ◽  
Medal Winner

AbstractCompetition medals are one of the most readily available sources of expert opinion to wine consumers, yet the “expertise” of competition judges and efficacy of medals have been questioned in the literature. This paper reevaluates the relevance of gold medals using data from ten competitions and scores from two leading wine publications. The analysis begins by exploring differences in gold medal award rates across competitions while holding wine quality constant through paired comparisons, which are found to be substantial. Next, the relevance of gold medals as indicators of wine quality is assessed, using the average scores from Wine Enthusiast and Wine Spectator as surrogates for quality. By itself, knowledge that a wine is a gold medal winner appears to have little relevance, as these wines do not score significantly higher than other medal winners. However, evidence suggests that golds from some competitions may be more relevant than others. (JEL Classifications: L15, L66)

Criteria for Accrediting Expert Wine Judges

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Hodgson ◽  
Jing Cao
Keyword(s):  
Probability Distribution ◽  
Wine Industry ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Professional Experience ◽  
Wine Quality ◽  
Basic Premise ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Jel Classifications

AbstractA test for evaluating wine judge performance is developed. The test is based on the premise that an expert wine judge will award similar scores to an identical wine. The definition of “similar” is parameterized to include varying numbers of adjacent awards on an ordinal scale, from No Award to Gold. For each index of similarity, a probability distribution is developed to determine the likelihood that a judge might pass the test by chance alone. When the test is applied to the results from a major wine competition, few judges pass the test. Of greater interest is that many judges who fail the test have vast professional experience in the wine industry. This leads to us to question the basic premise that experts are able to provide consistent evaluations in wine competitions and, hence, that wine competitions do not provide reliable recommendations of wine quality. (JEL Classifications: C02, C12, D81)

ALTERNATIVE COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE IN CASE OF CONNECTED RANKS

2021 ◽  
pp. 40-45
Author(s):  
Ю.В. Лубенец
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Special Kind ◽  
Statistical Characteristics ◽  
Expert Survey ◽  
Complete Consistency ◽  
Expert Opinions ◽  
Coefficient Of Concordance ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Two Stages ◽  
Good Agreement

Рассматривается оценка согласованности мнений экспертов при проведении экспертного опроса. Наиболее часто в качестве такой оценки применяется коэффициент конкордации Кендалла. Однако этот коэффициент не может в полной мере применяться для установления хорошей согласованности мнений экспертов, поскольку он показывает только отклонение от случаев полной несогласованности. Для устранения данного недостатка может рассматриваться альтернативный коэффициент конкордации, оценивающий близость сумм рангов альтернатив к случаю полной согласованности. Здесь дается определение этого коэффициента при наличии связанных рангов. Сложность определения заключается в том, что в этом случае наблюдается несколько случаев полной согласованности с различными суммами рангов. Определение альтернативного коэффициента конкордации при наличии связанных рангов проводится в два этапа. Сначала вводится его определение для упорядоченных таблиц специального вида и показывается его совпадение с коэффициентом конкордации Кендалла в этом случае. После дается определение альтернативного коэффициента конкордации в общем случае и показывается более простая формула его вычисления. Далее приводятся некоторые примеры сравнений значений рассматриваемых коэффициентов конкордации, их статистических характеристик и гистограмм The article considers evaluation of expert opinion consistency when conducting an expert survey. The most commonly used score is Kendall's coefficient of concordance. However, this coefficient cannot be fully applied to establish good agreement of expert opinions, as it only shows deviations from cases of complete inconsistency. To eliminate this drawback, an alternative concordance coefficient can be considered, which estimates the proximity of the sums of the ranks of the alternatives to the case of complete consistency. The article gives the definition of this coefficient in the presence of connected ranks. The difficulty of this definition lies in the fact that in this case there are several cases of complete consistency with different sums of ranks. Definition of the alternative coefficient of concordance in the presence of tied ranks is carried out in two stages. First, its definition for ordered tables of a special kind is introduced and its coincidence with Kendall's coefficient of concordance in this case is shown. After that, the definition of the alternative coefficient of concordance in the general case is given and a simpler formula for its calculation is shown. Below are some examples of comparisons of the values of the considered concordance coefficients, their statistical characteristics, and histograms

Don't Judge a Wine by Its Closure: Price Premiums for Corks in the U.S. Wine Market

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (01) ◽  
pp. 3-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anton Bekkerman ◽  
Gary W. Brester
Keyword(s):  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Grocery Stores ◽  
Purchase Decisions ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Quantile Regressions ◽  
Wine Quality ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Price Premiums ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Jel Classifications

AbstractFor many purchases, consumers often possess only limited information about product quality. Thus, observable product characteristics are used to determine expected quality levels when making purchase decisions. We use more than 1 million weekly scanner-level observations from grocery stores across ten U.S. markets between September 2009 and August 2012 to examine how consumers value a wine bottle's closure type (i.e., cork or screw cap). We focus on lower-priced wines—those with sale prices less than $30 per 750 milliliter bottle—to more accurately evaluate decisions of consumers for whom seeking additional information about wine quality is likely more costly than the benefits derived from that information. Using both pooled ordinary least squares and quantile regressions to estimate price premiums for bottles with corks or screw caps, we find that U.S. consumers are willing to pay, on average, approximately 8% more (about $1.00) for a bottle of wine that has a cork closure. In addition, we show that the size of this premium increases as wine prices decline. (JEL Classifications: D81, M31, Q11)

An Analysis of Wine Critic Consensus: A Study of Washington and California Wines

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric T. Stuen ◽  
Jon R. Miller ◽  
Robert W. Stone
Keyword(s):  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Expert Judgment ◽  
Point Scale ◽  
Wine Consumption ◽  
Quality Ratings ◽  
Intraclass Correlations ◽  
Using Data ◽  
High Level ◽  
Jel Classifications

AbstractWe examine the degree of consensus in quality ratings of prominent U.S. wine publications. For the purposes of wine consumption and research, are ratings on the ubiquitous 100-point scale reliable measures of quality? The value of expert judgment has been called into question by a number of studies, especially in the context of wine competitions and tasting events. Using data on 853 wines, we find a moderately high level of consensus, measured by the correlation coefficient, between most pairs of publications, similar to the level found by Ashton (2013). Rank and intraclass correlations are similar. Consensus is not found to be related to the blinding policies (or lack thereof) of the critical publications. (JEL Classifications: C93, D46)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document