We propose to establish wine rankings using scores that depend on the differences between favorable and unfavorable opinions about each wine, according to the Borda rule. Unlike alternative approaches and specifications, this method is well-defined even if the panelists’ quality relations are not required to exhibit demanding properties such as transitivity or acyclicity. As an illustration, we apply the method to rank wines assessed by different experts and compare the resulting ranking with that obtained according to Condorcet's method of majority voting.

Consumers use expert ratings to help choose wine, and economists find correlations between ratings and transaction prices. Rating scales resemble hedonic scales in the behavioral sciences, which suffer from an “intersubjectivity” problem. Taste is a private sensation; people taste differently (an external validity problem), so ratings are often unreliable hedonic markers of enjoyment. But why? Hedonic measurements from food science (“general Labeled Magnitude Scales”) attempt to adjust for differences in perceived sensory sensitivity and offer clues. Resulting insights illustrate wine ratings’ shortcomings as reliable guides to enjoyment. (JEL Classifications: C14, D12, D91, L15, L66)

This paper explores the nonlinearities of the bivariate distribution of Bordeaux en primeur, or wine futures, prices and Parker “barrel ratings” for the period of 2004 through 2010. In particular, copula-function methodology is introduced and employed to examine the nature of the bivariate distribution. Our results show a significant nonlinear relationship between Parker ratings and wine prices, characterized by significant positive tail dependence and higher correlation between high ratings and high prices. Marginal distributions for Parker ratings and wine prices are then identified and Monte Carlo simulation is employed to operationalize the relationship for risk-management purposes. (JEL Classifications: C19, G13, L66)

We 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)

We use experimental data to disentangle the signaling and budgetary effects of price on wine demand. The experimental design allows us to isolate the two effects in a simple and intuitive way. The signaling effect is present and nonlinear: it is strongly positive between 3 euros and 5 euros and undetectable between 5 euros and 8 euros. We find a similar nonlinear price–quality relationship in a large sample of wine ratings from the same price segment, supporting the hypothesis that taster behavior in the experiment is consistent with rationally using prices as signals of quality. Price signals also have greater importance for inexperienced (young) consumers. (JEL Classification: D11, D12, D82)