The Game Show Forum

The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: WarioBarker on January 13, 2015, 11:21:39 PM

Title: $ale update
Post by: WarioBarker on January 13, 2015, 11:21:39 PM
Surprised these haven't really been mentioned by now, but given the advance schedules for January 26-February 1 have been posted I figure I should make a new thread. :)

The biggest thing is that this week's shows are the last with the shopping format. Next Monday will start off the syndicated Winner's Board era, with Tuesday (#S-147) being the first appearance of Alan Cevednik.

Per the advance schedules, #S-153 (November 27, 1985) will be skipped on January 28, going straight to #S-154. Interestingly, this means the lease goes through at least #S-156 (December 2, 1985: Rich/Pauletta/Alan), an episode that's been online for a while.

This is gonna be a really fun month. :D
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: TLEberle on January 13, 2015, 11:49:31 PM
How would a person who doesn't know the players because he doesn't have a program know which episode 156 is?
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: WarioBarker on January 14, 2015, 01:37:04 AM
Fair point -- I've edited the player names into the OP. (The episode is on the "Game Show Temple" YouTube channel.)
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Vahan_Nisanian on January 15, 2015, 10:03:56 AM
Today's contestants are Brad/Buffy/Mark.

Brad's next episode was the last with the Syndicated Shopping Game. Bill/Lauren/Brad.

EDIT: Bold means returning champion.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: dale_grass on January 15, 2015, 11:36:44 AM
Today's contestants are Brad/Buffy/Mark.

Brad's next episode was the last with the Syndicated Shopping Game. Bill/Lauren/Brad.

It took me half a second, but the names in bold are returning champs, correct?
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: aaron sica on January 15, 2015, 01:10:31 PM
It took me half a second, but the names in bold are returning champs, correct?

I believe that's how it works. And this is not a slam or knock on anyone, but I never understood the purpose of these reference guides, aside from having cataloged every single episode for posterity. Knowing who wins the game, at least for me, ruins the joy of watching that episode.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: WarioBarker on January 15, 2015, 01:44:23 PM
And this is not a slam or knock on anyone, but I never understood the purpose of these reference guides, aside from having cataloged every single episode for posterity.
Two come to my mind:
* One is to try and clear up confusion (generally just on my part), especially since some shows made changes which generally aren't noted in tape collections -- the $1,000 "car round" box on the 1986 Cross-Wits, the CAR/Fur/Vacation graphic changes on Split Second very late in the run (after the 1987 tapings began), the addition of nameplates for the panel on the syndicated I've Got A Secret, etc. They're not big deals, of course -- just things I've noticed while watching game shows on YouTube.
* Another is because some shows have been thoroughly recapped by Game Show News Net (the GSN Chain Reaction, the final season of Shop 'Til You Drop, and the American Temptation come to mind), but said recaps are buried on the GSNN site.

Personally, I try to avoid giving spoilers unless it's a show with returning champs.

Knowing who wins the game, at least for me, ruins the joy of watching that episode.
Fair enough. Personally, I've found that if I don't look at the listings for too long, I'll forget the outcomes and be able to watch the episodes I haven't seen yet.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: TLEberle on January 15, 2015, 01:50:38 PM
Personally, I try to avoid giving spoilers unless it's a show with returning champs.
But when there's returning champions, spoiling is OK? I want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth or getting your point wrong; is this what you meant to say?
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: WarioBarker on January 15, 2015, 02:01:53 PM
Now, see, that's a bit of a hard question for me -- if you're listing episodes for a show with returning champs, even if it's just in a tape collection, there's gonna be spoilers kinda by default since you're listing the returning champ (if applicable).

In the case of shopping-era Sale and the second bonus format of the 1980s Split Second, there's the "Quit or play on?" choice where you can't really put "{Champ}" in the next listing instead of the winner's name because it says "someone came back" and can't really list three new player names since it reveals that someone walked.

It's a bit of a double-edged sword, admittedly. I get that some tape collections don't put the player names at all, but for me I find it simpler and less confusing to just give the names outright. I tend to avoid spoilers such as how much someone won and what they won, though, but it's kind of a case-by-case basis I guess.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: TLEberle on January 15, 2015, 02:12:55 PM
Now, see, that's a bit of a hard question for me -- if you're listing episodes for a show with returning champs, even if it's just in a tape collection, there's gonna be spoilers kinda by default since you're listing the returning champ (if applicable).
Absolutely. When someone linked to Al McDonald's ten day stretch on Sale of the Century as his "entire run" it did in fact spoil the mystery of who would win any particular episode other than the tenth, where he could have either lost or stopped with the winners bored prizes. And you're right, there's not a great answer for how to differentiate episodes of Blockbusters other than by who the champion is (and if you append "just a run-of-the-mill episode, nothing too exciting happens" in your trading catalog then why even bother to put it out there, it's like having forty rookie cards of somebody who washed out of the majors.)
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: ivoryman1986 on January 15, 2015, 05:18:10 PM


In the case of shopping-era Sale and the second bonus format of the 1980s Split Second, there's the "Quit or play on?" choice where you can't really put "{Champ}" in the next listing instead of the winner's name because it says "someone came back" and can't really list three new player names since it reveals that someone walked.


The "Quit or play on" choice also occured in the Joker's Jackpot-era episodes of the original TJW. In that and in the shopping-era $ale, there still could be a carry-over champion would be leaving with only parting gifts, this could also occur particularly with Pyramid, though very rarely.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: SRIV94 on January 16, 2015, 02:20:24 PM
So if I see correctly, today should've been the last shopping episode.  (I'm at work, so I didn't see the ep.)  Was it treated as though shopping were going to continue, or was it mentioned there'd be a new format for Monday?
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Vahan_Nisanian on January 16, 2015, 02:27:48 PM
So if I see correctly, today should've been the last shopping episode.  (I'm at work, so I didn't see the ep.)  Was it treated as though shopping were going to continue, or was it mentioned there'd be a new format for Monday?

At first, it was treated like shopping was going to continue, but then when they actually got to it, they cut the prize rundown very short. Then, when they got back from commercial, Jim Perry announced that they were going to start using the Winner's Board (which they had been using on the daytime edition for a year), and that the prize Brad had enough money for was his to take.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: jimlangefan on January 16, 2015, 03:47:11 PM
So if I see correctly, today should've been the last shopping episode.  (I'm at work, so I didn't see the ep.)  Was it treated as though shopping were going to continue, or was it mentioned there'd be a new format for Monday?

On top of what Vahan mentioned, Jim gave him the options of leaving the prize and coming back (as normal), taking the prize and leaving (as normal), or taking the prize AND coming back with the Winner's Board.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: clemon79 on January 16, 2015, 03:50:22 PM
Jim gave him the options of leaving the prize and coming back (as normal), taking the prize and leaving (as normal), or taking the prize AND coming back with the Winner's Board.

"Fark you and your Winner's Board. No prize, play on."
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Vahan_Nisanian on January 16, 2015, 04:03:12 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened on the last daytime episode with Shopping in 1984. But that has yet to resurface.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: BrandonFG on January 16, 2015, 04:15:20 PM
What was the shopping prize?
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: TLEberle on January 16, 2015, 04:19:56 PM
What was the shopping prize?
I hope it was something lower than the car; otherwise that's piles of awkward dead-ahead. Ideally the two ways the format swap works best are either having three new contestants on the Monday show because the last guy bought something, or a champion with a fairly low bankroll to that point.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: sotcfan2004 on January 16, 2015, 05:00:03 PM
What was the shopping prize?

A Beverly Hills shopping spree worth $5,000.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Ian Wallis on January 16, 2015, 05:09:12 PM
And this is not a slam or knock on anyone, but I never understood the purpose of these reference guides, aside from having cataloged every single episode for posterity. Knowing who wins the game, at least for me, ruins the joy of watching that episode.

I certainly understand your point.  However, even if I wasn't a collector, I'd still sometimes see an episode and wonder exactly whereabouts that was in the run.  For me personally, I always like to know original airdates whenever possible and these guides help with that.

But that's just me!
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Thunder on January 16, 2015, 05:34:15 PM
On top of what Vahan mentioned, Jim gave him the options of leaving the prize and coming back (as normal), taking the prize and leaving (as normal), or taking the prize AND coming back with the Winner's Board.

Am I missing something here? Why would anybody do anything other than take the prize and come back playing with the new format?
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: TLEberle on January 16, 2015, 05:39:04 PM
Am I missing something here? Why would anybody do anything other than take the prize and come back playing with the new format?
The only case where I can think it would play out that way was it was the last episode of the taping session and the champion just wanted to be done with it/couldn't come back for the next run of episodes.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: sotcfan2004 on January 17, 2015, 02:48:57 AM
While I can understand the need to trim the budget and maybe even introduce some more suspense into the endgame, I must admit that it's a little sad that they couldn't at least leave the progressive jackpot, even if just until it was hit one more time. To go all the way back down to a $50,000 cash bonus after watching it build progressively week after week and not have anyone claim it feels odd.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: WarioBarker on January 17, 2015, 11:40:03 AM
Yeah, that's something the Australian version got right when they switched to the Winner's Board in '89, along with each prize being at risk. Both would've made the syndicated Sale distinctly different from the daytime one, as the two shows are now gonna be pretty much near-identical.

As for the transition itself, I'm not mistaken some people around here mentioned that the ratings/clearances for syndie Sale were never that great, which would suggest the change was done for November sweeps.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Vahan_Nisanian on January 17, 2015, 11:42:32 AM
Yeah, that's something the Australian version got right when they switched to the Winner's Board in '89, along with each prize being at risk. Both would've made the syndicated Sale distinctly different from the daytime one, as the two shows are now gonna be pretty much near-identical.

As for the change itself, the transition may have been for November sweeps, as if I'm not mistaken some people around here mentioned that the ratings for syndie Sale were never that great.

It didn't even get cleared in Los Angeles, which, along with New York City, is one of the two largest TV markets in America.

It got cleared in NYC, weirdly enough.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Thunder on January 17, 2015, 01:48:32 PM
Yeah, that's something the Australian version got right when they switched to the Winner's Board in '89, along with each prize being at risk. Both would've made the syndicated Sale distinctly different from the daytime one, as the two shows are now gonna be pretty much near-identical.
...

Putting the Winner's Board prize at risk every game is not something they got right to me. Watching a six-day champion lose a game and go home with just a fish soup tureen, a trip to Catalina Island and "the cash in front of you" isn't good television to me.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: PYLdude on January 17, 2015, 03:05:00 PM
Yeah, that's something the Australian version got right when they switched to the Winner's Board in '89, along with each prize being at risk. Both would've made the syndicated Sale distinctly different from the daytime one, as the two shows are now gonna be pretty much near-identical.
...

Putting the Winner's Board prize at risk every game is not something they got right to me. Watching a six-day champion lose a game and go home with just a fish soup tureen, a trip to Catalina Island and "the cash in front of you" isn't good television to me.

How.is that any different from a contestant building up a good enough bankroll to potentially win the big prizes in the shopping game, then losing and going home with whatever he/she earned in the front game?

Same risk factor involved.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Dbacksfan12 on January 17, 2015, 05:13:09 PM
I think there's a distinction between winning six prizes only to have the rug yanked out from under you as opposed to passing up on something and hoping for something better. 
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: PYLdude on January 17, 2015, 05:49:49 PM
I think there's a distinction between winning six prizes only to have the rug yanked out from under you as opposed to passing up on something and hoping for something better. 

Is it still not a conscious risk to take, in either situation?
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: TLEberle on January 17, 2015, 07:37:27 PM
I think there's a distinction between winning six prizes only to have the rug yanked out from under you as opposed to passing up on something and hoping for something better. 
Champ should have quit while she was ahead then, especially if she had the car.

I think the Australian way is better: in America you're winning one smallish prize (midway between third IB and the $85 shopping prize) unless you flip over the $3,000 or the Jackpot prizes. Who cares. In Australia you're risking big prizes but there's always going to be something more and awesome put in the kitty, as well as staring down the barrel at a huge cash prize.

Yes, there's risk and yes there will be champions who push a step too far and win just the front game prizes. That is the same as a contestant who is wrong on Millionaire as well. The point of the exercise is the risk, and it makes for really good television. Watching as someone has turned over the biggest prizes on the board and has an eight day march to the $50,000 knowing that the car and $10,000 are safe neuters that excitement. Knowing that a champion just has to win by $1 means those instant bargain/cash decisions are less interesting because you'll never be on $495 coming into that third act needing $35 to win the car, so go ahead, have a punt.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Thunder on January 17, 2015, 09:36:10 PM
Heck yeah, it's more exciting. I gladly admit that... but I personally don't like it.

>>>

Yes, there's risk and yes there will be champions who push a step too far and win just the front game prizes. That is the same as a contestant who is wrong on Millionaire as well.

O_o
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: TLEberle on January 17, 2015, 10:08:29 PM
Did you have something to add, Boggleface? In both cases, the contestant risks and loses something they had previously. Just like on Card Sharks, or Let's Make a Deal.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Thunder on January 17, 2015, 10:54:01 PM
Not at all, sir. Not at all. :D
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: ivoryman1986 on January 20, 2015, 01:03:49 AM
Just to remind everybody that the next $ale episode is the start of Alan Cevidnik's run. We've seen the opening and closing of Alan's 8th episode, the opening and closing of that episode can be on WREYtube's(Frank Rey) account, but we've also seen his 9th episode on catnap's original YT account as well. I bet catnap still has that particualar episode in his collection since his copy is from a USA airing, but the closing was cut off. Yes, it's been over 2 decades since we've seen any episodes between Tim Holleran's Lot win and the 2nd week of the Winner's Board era and we're finally seeing them again.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: chad1m on January 20, 2015, 12:18:27 PM
Just to remind everybody that the next $ale episode is the start of Alan Cevidnik's run.
Hey, thanks for that, especially for people like me for whom this whole Sale acquisition has been like a new series to them.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: dale_grass on January 20, 2015, 01:27:05 PM
Just to remind everybody that the next $ale episode is the start of Alan Cevidnik's run.
Hey, thanks for that, especially for people like me for whom this whole Sale acquisition has been like a new series to them.

Don't be mad at him.  At this point I assume he just opens a thread, places his hands on the home row of the keyboard, and goes into a dissociative fugue, only to awaken a few minutes later standing in the kitchen holding a half-eaten apple, unaware of how he got there as he takes another bite.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: TLEberle on January 20, 2015, 01:37:30 PM
I can't tell if Chad is mad or genuinely thankful.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Dbacksfan12 on January 20, 2015, 01:46:26 PM
I can't tell if Chad is mad or genuinely thankful.
I can't speak from him, but I can say that I would be genuinely annoyed if I was watching episodes of something for the first time and someone spilled the beans on the next 10 episodes or however many shows comprise a run.  Completely takes the thrill out of watching knowing who won going in.

Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: dale_grass on January 20, 2015, 01:50:14 PM
I can't tell if Chad is mad or genuinely thankful.
I can't speak from him, but I can say that I would be genuinely annoyed if I was watching episodes of something for the first time and someone spilled the beans on the next 10 episodes or however many shows comprise a run. 

I have a strong inkling Travis was being sarcastic, since it's blatantly obvious Chad was being sarcastic.  I, on the other hand, am genuinely worried about how often ivoryman1986 slips in and out of consciousness while posting on this board.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: jjman920 on January 20, 2015, 01:58:10 PM
When I was watching Michael's run, I made sure to avoid spoilers to see exactly how it had ended.

Am I missing something? If someone starts off a spoiler tag with "the next $ale episode is...", doesn't that revoke my right to annoyed that the person spoiled me? I mean I thought that was one of the great things about spoiler tags?
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: TLEberle on January 20, 2015, 01:59:26 PM
I can't speak from him, but I can say that I would be genuinely annoyed if I was watching episodes of something for the first time and someone spilled the beans on the next 10 episodes or however many shows comprise a run.  Completely takes the thrill out of watching knowing who won going in.
I can see two sides to it; wanting to be able to enjoy the episodes that the viewer hasn't seen before and having that spoiled by someone whose intentions we cannot possibly know. The other side of that coin is that the episodes are nearly thirty years old at this point. Discussing them means that details and results are going to be revealed, and care should be taken when reading things here. Plus Sale of the Century is so good that I would watch the show knowing what happened anyway because the whole package is excellent.

To JJ's question: When you saw the episode where Michael is playing for Prizes and $71,000 and one of his challengers is Alice from Arizona, did you realize the jig was up? Chad's point is that the spoiler tag is ruined by the information that comes after it; if I say "Hey everyone, John Hatton's Blockbusters run starts today and as we all know he won ten matches and $60,000," those who didn't know that were in fact spoiled, whether I meant to be helpful or a jerky-jerkface from Jerktown.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: dale_grass on January 20, 2015, 02:40:58 PM
Wait, now I'm confused.  Ivory's post had no spoiler tags.  Also, the current discussion was on different formats, and then blammo, a spoiler.  Mind you, I don't really care about having 30-year-old game show episodes spoiled, but I can see how such a point would grate people.

Plus Sale of the Century is so good that I would watch the show knowing what happened anyway because the whole package is excellent.

Ditto here with The Chase.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: snowpeck on January 20, 2015, 02:42:48 PM
When I was watching Michael's run, I made sure to avoid spoilers to see exactly how it had ended.

Am I missing something? If someone starts off a spoiler tag with "the next $ale episode is...", doesn't that revoke my right to annoyed that the person spoiled me? I mean I thought that was one of the great things about spoiler tags?
Except that ivoryman1986 didn't use a spoiler tag. Chad added it when he quoted the original post.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: jjman920 on January 20, 2015, 02:47:57 PM
When I was watching Michael's run, I made sure to avoid spoilers to see exactly how it had ended.

Am I missing something? If someone starts off a spoiler tag with "the next $ale episode is...", doesn't that revoke my right to annoyed that the person spoiled me? I mean I thought that was one of the great things about spoiler tags?
Except that ivoryman1986 didn't use a spoiler tag. Chad added it when he quoted the original post.
Ah, now I see it. I was indeed missing something.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: TLEberle on January 20, 2015, 02:56:11 PM
All the more reason to ignore members who have a propensity to reveal sensitive information that you don't want to know.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: chad1m on January 20, 2015, 04:35:57 PM
I was incredibly sarcastic and added the spoiler tag to try be more helpful to those who feel like I do. Sure, I know about the more "name" champions and am aware this is a 30-year-old show. But I also grew up without tape trading and the airings on USA being ingrained in my memory, so I've been hoping to avoid too much information. I had seen hardly a handful of episodes of the program before it appeared on GSN. Yes, I will still watch because Sale is a fine program, but my enjoyment does get lessened when I know how the next two weeks are going to go.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: chrisholland03 on February 01, 2015, 06:54:13 PM
Watching the GSN episodes, and converting some daytime episodes for a friend, I've noticed that frequently the cars are being supplied by LCS Financial -- which I believe is a repossession/short-sale company (of dubious reputation).  Were they really giving away used, repossessed vehicles?

Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: PYLdude on February 01, 2015, 08:21:41 PM
Watching the GSN episodes, and converting some daytime episodes for a friend, I've noticed that frequently the cars are being supplied by LCS Financial -- which I believe is a repossession/short-sale company (of dubious reputation).  Were they really giving away used, repossessed vehicles?



Certainly there is more than one company named LCS Financial in the world.

Besides the point, weren't the dealerships credited, or am I missing something?
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: parliboy on February 01, 2015, 09:22:36 PM
Certainly there is more than one company named LCS Financial in the world.

Besides the point, weren't the dealerships credited, or am I missing something?

The "credited" dealership was LCS Financial, not Joe-Bob Chevrolet.  Like, Jay said "furnished by LCS Financial Corporation".

They seemed to be using them quite a bit, and in some cases where they aren't using them, they don't have any dealership credited.  For example, in the episode where Alan has reduced the board to $10,000 and Car, there was no dealership credit, either verbally or in the end-credits, suggesting that if he had won the Jeep on offer, it would have been unsponsored.

Given when the show was likely shot, and given that they don't list the model year in describing the vehicles, what I bet happened (and this is complete and utter speculation) is that LCS picked up some 1-year old, unsold "new" vehicles that were destined to be fleet cars and tried to flip them at their dealership.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: PYLdude on February 02, 2015, 04:23:44 AM
Given when the show was likely shot, and given that they don't list the model year in describing the vehicles, what I bet happened (and this is complete and utter speculation) is that LCS picked up some 1-year old, unsold "new" vehicles that were destined to be fleet cars and tried to flip them at their dealership.

Honestly, that's not too wacky of a speculation as you might think. I could totally understand that being the reasoning and that it was overstock they dealt in and not necessarily repos.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Pyramid80 on March 06, 2015, 10:59:39 AM
How many episodes of $ale were produced for they syndicated run?  Just curious how many more are left before GSN potentially starts over with the current leased episodes.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Vahan_Nisanian on March 06, 2015, 11:11:54 AM
How many episodes of $ale were produced for they syndicated run?  Just curious how many more are left before GSN potentially starts over with the current leased episodes.

270, according to one individual who told me recently that he has every Syndie episode from USA Network, but never got to convert his recordings from analog to digital.

Greg Brobeck told me in a PM that the USA Network lease consisted of 120 daytime episodes (around August 1988 to March 1989) and all 270 episodes of the Syndie edition for a total of 390 episodes.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: aaron sica on March 06, 2015, 12:13:56 PM

270, according to one individual who told me recently that he has every Syndie episode from USA Network, but never got to convert his recordings from analog to digital.

Greg Brobeck told me in a PM that the USA Network lease consisted of 120 daytime episodes (around August 1988 to March 1989) and all 270 episodes of the Syndie edition for a total of 390 episodes.

Who told you 270? I'm not sure that number is right...
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Bryce L. on March 06, 2015, 01:39:55 PM

270, according to one individual who told me recently that he has every Syndie episode from USA Network, but never got to convert his recordings from analog to digital.

Greg Brobeck told me in a PM that the USA Network lease consisted of 120 daytime episodes (around August 1988 to March 1989) and all 270 episodes of the Syndie edition for a total of 390 episodes.

Who told you 270? I'm not sure that number is right...
Might actually be spot on, since S-270 would be May 30, 1986, barring any more weeks off between S-181 (February 27, 1986, which GSN aired today) and May 30.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: snowpeck on March 06, 2015, 06:43:54 PM
What I said was that USA's lease, per Variety articles, was 390 episodes. So if the 270 number is right, that would leave 120 daytime shows.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: PYLdude on March 06, 2015, 08:29:00 PM
What I said was that USA's lease, per Variety articles, was 390 episodes. So if the 270 number is right, that would leave 120 daytime shows.

And the daytime show portion of that lease, if I remember, didn't include the first WBMG played for fifty grand, right? I know it included the second.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: splinkynip on March 06, 2015, 08:32:49 PM
I think there may have been less than 270 syndicated... maybe 230 total?  I guess we'll see how far GSN gets to...

I seem to recall when watching the original airings on WABC that they went into reruns in March of 1986 and never aired new ones again.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: WarioBarker on March 06, 2015, 11:36:25 PM
For the record, this is the post Vahan was referring to (http://gsparadise.proboards.com/thread/850/sale-century-discussion?page=2&scrollTo=17078), from Game Show Paradise. Relevant portions quoted below (the part I cut out is a spoiler regarding the nighttime Winner's Board era):

Quote from: salephreak
I have every episode of Sale of the Century USA aired on videotape. Unfortunately, I am not on the trading circuit because I have not had time in the last 20 years to trade, nor have I had another device to connect to my VCR.
[...]
By my count of shows in my collection, the second season of syndicated Sale of the Century had 34 weeks.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: PYLdude on March 07, 2015, 12:29:43 AM
For the record, this is the post Vahan was referring to (http://gsparadise.proboards.com/thread/850/sale-century-discussion?page=2&scrollTo=17078), from Game Show Paradise. Relevant portions quoted below (the part I cut out is a spoiler regarding the nighttime Winner's Board era):

Quote from: salephreak
I have every episode of Sale of the Century USA aired on videotape. Unfortunately, I am not on the trading circuit because I have not had time in the last 20 years to trade, nor have I had another device to connect to my VCR.
[...]
By my count of shows in my collection, the second season of syndicated Sale of the Century had 34 weeks.

Which by my count wouldn't have taken the second season very far into May 1986, if it was indeed 34....when did season 2 premiere?
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: Bryce L. on March 07, 2015, 12:44:44 AM
For the record, this is the post Vahan was referring to (http://gsparadise.proboards.com/thread/850/sale-century-discussion?page=2&scrollTo=17078), from Game Show Paradise. Relevant portions quoted below (the part I cut out is a spoiler regarding the nighttime Winner's Board era):

Quote from: salephreak
I have every episode of Sale of the Century USA aired on videotape. Unfortunately, I am not on the trading circuit because I have not had time in the last 20 years to trade, nor have I had another device to connect to my VCR.
[...]
By my count of shows in my collection, the second season of syndicated Sale of the Century had 34 weeks.
Which by my count wouldn't have taken the second season very far into May 1986, if it was indeed 34....when did season 2 premiere?
September 16, 1985, by mine and Dan's guide.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: PYLdude on March 07, 2015, 12:57:42 AM
For the record, this is the post Vahan was referring to (http://gsparadise.proboards.com/thread/850/sale-century-discussion?page=2&scrollTo=17078), from Game Show Paradise. Relevant portions quoted below (the part I cut out is a spoiler regarding the nighttime Winner's Board era):

Quote from: salephreak
I have every episode of Sale of the Century USA aired on videotape. Unfortunately, I am not on the trading circuit because I have not had time in the last 20 years to trade, nor have I had another device to connect to my VCR.
[...]
By my count of shows in my collection, the second season of syndicated Sale of the Century had 34 weeks.
Which by my count wouldn't have taken the second season very far into May 1986, if it was indeed 34....when did season 2 premiere?
September 16, 1985, by mine and Dan's guide.

So my math leaves me with a finale of May 9, 1986 if the number is 170.

There were 100 eps in season one, then? I forgot.
Title: Re: $ale update
Post by: WarioBarker on March 07, 2015, 01:05:18 AM
Season 1 had 100 shows, yes. #S-100 ends with no prizes previewed for next week and Jim saying "We thank you for joining us on Sale of the Century." (as their renewal was still up in the air at the time), while #S-101 opens with Jim welcoming viewers to a new season of Sale.

Aside from that, Season 2 evidently aired some repeats at Christmas/New Year's, given Jim's comment on #S-166 (the first show with a 1986 copyright date):
Quote from: Jim Perry
Welcome to Sale of the Century, delighted to have you with us, and I understand some new stations have joined the Sale of the Century family. Happy to have you aboard, you'll get the idea how we play our game very quickly.
...Which would make more sense if said at midseason. Further, per this recollection on JBoard (http://jboard.tv/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2653#p155076) by an audience member who saw Rocky Brown's last two shows (166-167), those were taped 12/20/85 (he previously mentioned it on ATGS (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.tv.game-shows/JfIJpjvANRg/m053-rLRGckJ) in 1999), and I don't think they would've had a 1986 copyright date if they weren't scheduled to air in January.

As such, it's believed the show took three weeks of repeats just before midseason, which would end the run at May 30 with repeats through September 12. In addition to this, Greg Brobeck's collection lists Lisa Munoz/Ryan/Ann as having aired February 24, 1986 (it's an original broadcast with commercials), which should be #S-201 if all my above assumptions about repeats are correct.