Improving Experts' Wine Quality Judgments: Two Heads Are Better than One*

Robert H. Ashton

Journal of Wine Economics, 2011, vol. 6, issue 2, 160-178

Abstract: This paper reports an analysis of data from the “Judgment of Paris,” the 1976 blind tasting of California and French wines that revolutionized the wine world. Using both empirical and analytical methods, I demonstrate that the wine quality judgments of the renowned experts who participated in the Paris tasting would have been improved simply by averaging the quality ratings of two or more of the judges. Moreover, I explore both how many of the Paris judges should be included in the average and which ones they should be. The results have implications for the practical issue of choosing judges to include in tasting panels that award prizes or provide expert advice to consumers, as well as for better understanding the variability in the price-quality association across hedonic wine pricing studies. (JEL Classification: C93)

Date: 2011
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:jwecon:v:6:y:2011:i:02:p:160-178_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Wine Economics from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().