The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: SuperMatch93 on July 09, 2025, 08:36:40 PM
-
When Temptation premiered in 2005, the top prize was $500,000 in gold. If a contestant had won it at the time, and held onto it until now, they would have over AU$4.5 million worth (~$2.95 million American).
What are some other examples of prizes from game shows in the past that are worth far more today than they were at the time, outpacing inflation? I know Cullen Price gave away a Picasso at one point, and the Dream Houses are probably worth more by now if they're still standing.
-
I imagine some classic cars? Perhaps the Rolls Royce given away on Treasure Hunt?
-
I imagine some classic cars? Perhaps the Rolls Royce given away on Treasure Hunt?
The gold bar ounces that were IUFBs on TPIR in the 80s.
-
Classic Concentration and maybe others awarded shares of stock.
High Rollers gave away gallons of gasoline.
On one of the few episodes of Seven Keys still around, the prize was a coin-operated rocking horse and a space for it, the purpose of which was to make money.
Some of Monty’s zonks would have value if one kept them. Elephants, for example, have long lives and are—sadly—rarer today than they once were.
An aside: I like that Aussie Temptation announced the grand prize as gold, even if they didn’t really. It’s odd to say you’re buying money.
-
Temptation did give winners the option of $500,000 in cash.
They offered a rather large abstract painting early in the season as one of the great temptations around $15k to $20k, but it was not claimed, the artist died in the interim and the painting came back after the revamp as a night four prize worth $37,500.
Wheel of Fortune had a “profiles in history” bonus prize where the winner could claim a document from the days of the American founding, which certainly could appreciate in value.
-
Any good art should have gone up in value, whether it's the Norman Rockwells I have seen on the late 70s High Rollers to the Luggature on Wheel of Fortune in the late 90s. (Hi Ryan!)
Pinball machines have gone up a crazy amount of money the last 10 years. Good ones from the 80s and 90s would have a nice ROI, though the only shows that might offer them are Price and Wheel.
-
This is a really specific example. From Bill Cullen-era Price...There was a contestant in 1960 named Mr. Jones; if you watched the Buzzr reruns diligently, you might remember him as the one who swore and fell out of his chair during one game. I had the chance to meet him a few years before he passed away and it turned out he had some really good fortune with the specific prizes he won. There was a set of furniture that's now prized among collectors, and a set of stemware from a manufacturer so popular that collectors will apparently settle for just buying one glass at a time instead of buying complete sets. Well, he still had his complete set. He had his prizes appraised at some point in the early 2000s and got such enthusiastic feedback from the appraiser that he immediately worked out a deal with an auction house. His cut ended up coming to something like $200,000.
BTW, Mr. Jones had a nice post-retirement life as a film extra and bragged that he had albums full of photos he had taken of the sets he had been on.
"They let you take photos on the set?"
"No, but I'm an old man and I don't know better, okay? If somebody tries to stop me, I act all agitated and scared and they back off, and I go back to taking photos."
-
The market for old-school offroad vehicles today is, to sum it up, utterly bonkers. TPiR offered souped-up Toyota pickup trucks and Jeep CJs fairly often in the '80s...a contestant who held on to one of those and kept it in good condition would certainly make a mint.
-
The market for old-school offroad vehicles today is, to sum it up, utterly bonkers. TPiR offered souped-up Toyota pickup trucks and Jeep CJs fairly often in the '80s...a contestant who held on to one of those and kept it in good condition would certainly make a mint.
Honestly, everyday cars too. I’ve window-shopped on Facebook and Bring A Trailer, and see early-80s JDM cars going for 15-20K easily. And I don’t just mean a Supra or Prelude. Even an old Civic or Accord hatchback is selling for five-figures.
A lot of it is because the used car market went haywire during the pandemic but someone who won, say, a 626 coupe on LMaD could also make a decent buck.
-
I don't claim to know how they intimately work, but the annuity that Wheel of Fortune offered in the 80s and 90s seems like it fits the category.
Obviously everyone comes from a different money situation, but I'm surprised that more people didn't play for it during the pick-your-prize bonus round era, as I remember it being worth at least twice the $25k on a couple occasions.
-
I don't claim to know how they intimately work, but the annuity that Wheel of Fortune offered in the 80s and 90s seems like it fits the category.
Obviously everyone comes from a different money situation, but I'm surprised that more people didn't play for it during the pick-your-prize bonus round era, as I remember it being worth at least twice the $25k on a couple occasions.
I agree with you 100%, and I say that without my financial literacy teacher hat on.
It's a simple case of instant gratification vs. delayed gratification. Should you take the sure thing now, or wait 20 or 30 years for a larger payout? If 20-year-old me was smarter and had better money habits, give me the annuity. Present 50-year-old me with health concerns would take the money.
-
I guess how well all those X00 lottery ticket prizes could apply depends on when you scratch them off.
I don't claim to know how they intimately work, but the annuity that Wheel of Fortune offered in the 80s and 90s seems like it fits the category.
Obviously everyone comes from a different money situation, but I'm surprised that more people didn't play for it during the pick-your-prize bonus round era, as I remember it being worth at least twice the $25k on a couple occasions.
Whenever Powerball/Mega Millions enters the conversation, I feel like there are side conversations about taxes and ROI. The reasons you take the Straight Cash Homie option is that either you are paying less taxes and/or you can invest in products that create better interest than the 4-ish percent per year assigned to you by the lottery commission.
When the money is stupid high, the argument is for math nerds and people who feel like they need to "win" all the dang time. When the money is lower, then there's decisions to be made. I don't think anyone in 1988 would turn down 10k/year for x years, but 25k in a world where the median income is 28k makes a lot of problems go away immediately.
-
I was thinking of asking this spin-off question, too...
I was working on a show in which any big winner had to choose to be paid either via a very long annuity or via a lump sum that was significantly smaller than the amount it looked like they won. I got into a debate with someone over which would be the better option to take.
Let's say the prize was $500,000 -- not lottery jackpot money, but still a very meaningful amount. For simplicity's sake, let's say the lump sum option is half the prize ($250,000) and let's say the annuity option lasts for 25 years (so $20,000 a year for 25 years... I see now that isn't how lotteries pay out annuities, but it's what we assumed the annuity would be when we had our debate).
My position was that I'd rather have the assurance of $20,000 a year coming my way for more than two decades, which would give me flexibility in my career and a sizable rainy-day fund if I found myself suddenly unemployed long-term or hit with a medical emergency. His position was that he could do better investing $250,000 now to make up the $250,000 he didn't receive from the show. (In fairness, I don't have the drive to meticulously invest and watch over that kind of money in a way that would wring every last penny out of it.)
Is there a "correct" answer as to which payout option to take, or is it dependent on each person's financial attitude? For context, this debate was between two single people residing in Los Angeles, a city where it's impossible to live on $20,000 a year and where $250,000 is nowhere near the price of a house.
-
The correct answer is whatever works for each person and his or her circumstances—even if I won a coupon worth $100k in 2041 I might be looking to see what I might be able to sell it for.
Bob Harris won $200,000 on Super Greed and sold the annuity for $60k. He also sold the twin Camaros he won as a five time winner on Jeopardy. Utility is different for everyone.
Several shows with a seven figure prize allow the choice of being paid over time or the market value of the relevant annuity. When Millionaire reduced the prizes for questions 10, 11 and 12 they also split the prize for $500k or $1 million as part instantly and the rest over ten or twenty years.
-
Cullen TPIR gave away a casting of The Thinker, supposedly signed by Rodin himself; assuming the contestant kept it (the taxes on a $20,000 item back then would have been rather high), it must be worth far more than that now.
Speaking of taxes, somebody mentioned the Rolls-Royce given away on The New Treasure Hunt; I am pretty sure the contestant had to sell it to pay the taxes on it.
Somebody mentioned zonks on Hall LMAD; what was the largest zonk that anyone actually kept? (I am assuming that one of the reasons zonks on the Brady version are clearly marked is to prevent the contestant from actually trying to keep it.) I want to say that it was a bull. They once gave away an actual oil derrick (the kind that rotates on one end while the other end goes up and down), but talked the contestant into accepting another prize instead. There were also at least two times where a zonk winner traded it back for a spot in the Big Deal.
The OP also mentioned a prize in gold - besides the one-ounce gold bars occasionally up for bid on TPIR, I can think of a couple of other shows that gave away gold: Dealer's Choice gave away gold bars (and also silver bars - now there's something that appreciated in value, percentagewise), and on ABC's one season of The Krypton Factor, the advertised prize was $50,000 in gold, but on the final episode, the winner got the choice between the gold and cash, and took the money instead.
Another prize to consider: airplanes - not microlights, but ones where you need a license. Assuming a Piper or Cessna from the 1970s or early 1980s is still in something resembling flying condition, it is worth far more than its purchase price now, as the price of new planes skyrocketed at some point because of the cost of the manufacturers' liability insurance.
-
Is there a "correct" answer as to which payout option to take
It is almost always contextual, but my inclination would be to prioritize no longer needing to work and paying off debts. If I neither option does the former, I'd see if one or more options could do the latter. If that's not viable, then it's economic theory time.
-
Is there a "correct" answer as to which payout option to take, or is it dependent on each person's financial attitude?
Well, ask the New York Mets that question. They thought they could invest Bobby Bonilla's contract buyout with that nice Bernie Madoff fellow. Didn't work out so well for them. :)
-
In Italy that would be any cash prize, as they are paid in gold.
In 2006 a then-new €665,000 list price Ferrari Enzo was offered on a gameshow. Someone won it but opted to take its price in gold, so the car was put back at stake. The second winner kept the car, now valued over four millions. (after taxes, that gold would be €2,800,000 today)
-
In Italy that would be any cash prize, as they are paid in gold.
Is that a recent practice, or has that been the case for a while now? I'm imagining Isabella Lama and some of the other TeleMike champions getting treasure chests full if that was the case. :)
-
My position was that I'd rather have the assurance of $20,000 a year coming my way for more than two decades, which would give me flexibility in my career and a sizable rainy-day fund if I found myself suddenly unemployed long-term or hit with a medical emergency. His position was that he could do better investing $250,000 now to make up the $250,000 he didn't receive from the show. (In fairness, I don't have the drive to meticulously invest and watch over that kind of money in a way that would wring every last penny out of it.)
Is there a "correct" answer as to which payout option to take, or is it dependent on each person's financial attitude? For context, this debate was between two single people residing in Los Angeles, a city where it's impossible to live on $20,000 a year and where $250,000 is nowhere near the price of a house.
You are absolutely correct. Age, location, health and current financial situation all play a part in that, so everyone's answer will be driven by different motivations.
My short answer is that if you have smart, specific ways to allocate that money, take the lump sum. If you find yourself hemming and hawing or immediately start envisioning yourself spending summers on a jet ski in the Hamptons, take the annuity.
We had a lump sum vs. annuity conversation at a barbecue years ago when one of the lottery jackpots was incredibly high, and while everyone had their reasoning, one that I'd never considered came up when a family member who's notoriously bad with money mentioned always taking the lump sum. Almost immediately afterwards, someone else said "Maybe you should take the annuity, because even if you mess that money up, you still have 19 more chances to get it right!"
-
In Italy that would be any cash prize, as they are paid in gold.
Is that a recent practice, or has that been the case for a while now? I'm imagining Isabella Lama and some of the other TeleMike champions getting treasure chests full if that was the case. :)
That's since television became a thing, in 1954. Many years ago a Big Brother winner told the story of when one day some delivery men showed up at his home with boxes of shiny tokens ("like €0.10 coins"), then he kept some as a memento, sent the others back and finally the money was wired to the bank.
A recent court ruling allows for actual money prizes up to €5,000 on the condition that contestants selection is done with "clear and impartial criteria". This means that networks will give gold forever ::)
-
We had a lump sum vs. annuity conversation at a barbecue years ago when one of the lottery jackpots was incredibly high, and while everyone had their reasoning, one that I'd never considered came up when a family member who's notoriously bad with money mentioned always taking the lump sum. Almost immediately afterwards, someone else said "Maybe you should take the annuity, because even if you mess that money up, you still have 19 more chances to get it right!"
This is why I'd be inclined to take the annuity as well.
-
We had a lump sum vs. annuity conversation at a barbecue years ago when one of the lottery jackpots was incredibly high, and while everyone had their reasoning, one that I'd never considered came up when a family member who's notoriously bad with money mentioned always taking the lump sum. Almost immediately afterwards, someone else said "Maybe you should take the annuity, because even if you mess that money up, you still have 19 more chances to get it right!"
This is why I'd be inclined to take the annuity as well.
I'm a morbid person so I always say take the upfront money because you never know what could happen tomorrow, but Jeremy's relative makes an interesting point. Add on the fact that being a freelancer who can have a great week followed by a terrible one, I love the idea of having guaranteed (supplemental?) income for the next 20 or so years. Mo Money, Mo Problems and all but I don't think I'm making purchases bigger than what PYL contestants would play for in the Bonanza round.
Also the idea of being super rich terrifies me. Granted I'm not turning down a seven- or eight-figure payday; I'd just be a little paranoid.
-
I've always wondered how secure annuities are. I mean, lotteries are essentially run through the government, so I'd feel pretty safe with an annuity there. But what about a private organization, such as a game show production company. Not Fremantle necessarily, but a lesser one with fewer assets. If I decide to produce The $1,000,000 Words Have Meanings, and it's a huge flop but seven people won the jackpot, can I declare bankruptcy and just not pay them the last 19 years of their winnings?
The obvious real-life example is Chance of a Lifetime, and from all indications all those folks did get paid. I'm still interested in the hypothetical.
-
I don’t think so—if you purchase/set up the financial instrument then it is set in motion and out of your hands. More likely you would cancel the show/not air and not pay.
Pepsi’s billion dollar prize was insured by Berkshire Hathaway and had a year 40 balloon payment of $710 million, with payout s escalating as time went on. The cash out was $250 million.
-
The few minutes of web searching implies that it's an insurance product, so you would be paying an outside company to underwrite a policy that pays out in the event of the jackpot being won, presumably at a lower rate per annum than even the "cash option" value of the annuity. Once the conditions of the policy are met, it's up to the insurance company.
/OT but related: both big lottery jackpots are 30 payments with +5% per payment
//As of now, the first payment for the base Powerball jackpot ($20M) is like $301k; for Mega Millions (now $50M) it's $752k
///The $2.04 billion Powerball first payment would have been $30.7M, so like hitting the Powerball every year for 30 years