Show Discussion: For What It’s Worth Series 2

By | May 23, 2016

fwiwWeekdays, 2:15pm,
BBC1

The first series of this was a bit of a surprise hit, we liked it – a Bullseye-esque combination of quizzing and antiques valuation, but crucially not an antiques quiz which I would have found dull, it wasn’t quite perfect but it had a pretty good mechanic at its heart and was entertaining, although there were definitely ways it could improve as a show.

It sounds like they’ve taken it apart, cleaned the bits and put it back together again – this new series features an audience to go with its rather large studio and a suggestion that it might be a bit harder to know what your selected antique is worth when offered the trade at the end to make it more of a decision. Looking forward to it.

7 thoughts on “Show Discussion: For What It’s Worth Series 2

  1. Danny Kerner

    They really have tweaked with the format. 12 items instead of 15 items

    Round 1 now has 8 questions instead of 10 plus they choose the item before the question so a potential fight between contestants with the 1st to buzz and correctly wins the item.

    Round 2 is the same 3 Questions format but instead of 2 board questions and 1 potential steal question its now 2 steal questions. (They will always be something left on the board guaranteed thanks to this change) (11 Q’s 12 items)

    Round 3 has been totally redesigned. The same item guess options are played except you are grabbing from a grid instead of picking your brains.

    Reply
    1. Brig Bother Post author

      Thanks, I’m probably not going to get to watch until tomorrow night so I’m interested to see what people think of the changes.

      Reply
    2. Marc

      Actually, in Round 2 you can always pick from the board, so there’s no guarantee that at least one item will go unclaimed.

      Reply
  2. John R

    The studio audience added precisely nothing, they could have got away with canned applause as that was the extent of their use!

    I would have liked to see them actually have a role at some point, perhaps during the trade bit and have a vote on which piece they think is the more valuable to perhaps sway the contestants a bit.

    From looking at the listings seems they have a few more of the Bargain Hunt experts in the rotation this series, I do like Anita Manning and her skill in being able to literally sell ice to an Eskimo whilst making a large cash profit somehow!

    Reply
    1. Thomas Sales

      As far as I can tell, only one material cast change – Charles Hanson is no longer there and has been replaced by Manning, while half the rest reprise their roles in the same slot and the other two occupy a different day.

      Series 2 is the embodiment of ‘you can’t have it all’. I like the new Wipeout-style boards at the end of round three, but I don’t like the fact they don’t explain all the answers (yes, they give them, but they don’t explain any correct answers not picked prior to a wrong answer being picked). I like the fact that they’ve removed the enervating confessionals, but I don’t like the chat they’ve shoehorned in at the start of asking the expert for more information – it only serves to lengthen an otherwise superfluous segment of the program. I like the audience noises (although I agree canned laughter could’ve sufficed), but I don’t like the fact that they’ve slashed the number of items to twelve.

      Reply
  3. Brig Bother Post author

    Yep, still quite like this although the changes are a mixed bag – don’t like fewer items and that the first round is slowed down by having each team pick one before the question, do very much like Wipeout-esque Round three (didn’t initially love the idea that selecting the ninth right answer won, but mollified by teams switching on deciding to go first or second after seeing the category) – enjoyed the writing for the round three questions as well with clever (and sometimes funny – Clancy Abbey!) wrong answers.

    Think Fern seems much more comfortable in hosts role, I think audience suits, I like valuer offering comment when they run round and look at items. I still think marking something definitively as Top Lot and Worthless Lot leads for too much potential for pointless epilogue especially as with fewer items in play you’d assume the mystery would be easier to work out.

    Surprised today that everyone looked really impressed that someone knew how many legs an insect had. Really?

    Reply
  4. David B

    Anita really is the wizard of BH. “What am I bid for this CHARMING Twix wrapper? 100 pounds? 70 pounds? Start me off at 50. Fifty bid. Fifty bid. Do I see sixty?”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.