posted
We've been through this before, but the new movie's rather drastic twist on things made me return to my notes for comparison.
Basic assumptions, with which some might argue:
"Where No Man Has Gone Before" takes place in 2265. Icheb mentioned in "Q2" (VGR) that Kirk's 5-year mission ended in 2270, indicating that it began in 2265. Depending on whether or not the episode's stardate indicates it as being over a year into the mission (though of this I am quite dubious) it might actually take place in early 2266, skewing the dates based on this episode.
Cadets generally enroll in the Academy at age 17, the minimum age allowed. This is a bit more aguable, since it is never cited in any episode, but it is established by the TOS writer's guide, and seems to hold true in most (if not all) cases. We know from later references that SFA is generally a four-year institution, though it's possible that certain individuals may graduate early or be held back an extra year depending on their performance.
2233
Kirk is born to George and Winona Kirk of the U.S.S. Kelvin. His age was given as 34 in "The Deadly Years" (TOS), set in 2267. Parents' names and assignment from the new movie, prior to Nero's incursion.
2242
Gary Mitchell is born. His age was given as 23 on his personnel report in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (TOS).
2246
Kirk, age 13, is on Tarsus IV when famine ensues after exotic fungus spoils the colony's food supplies. He is witness to Governor Kodos' declaration of martial law and subsequent mass murder of half the colony's population of over 8,000. Kirk is one of 9 surviving eye witnesses capable of identifying Kodos, along with Thomas Leighton and Kevin Riley. 20 years prior to "The Conscience Of The King" (TOS), according to computer record.
2250
Kirk enters Starfleet Academy. Age 17, as established by the TOS writer's guide.
Kirk meets Gary Mitchell. The Okudas failed to completely evaluate the references in WNMHGB on this issue. Kirk says he had known Mitchell for 15 years. However, Mitchell would be only 8 years old at this time, so he certainly wasn't a fellow cadet. More likely Kirk was acquainted with his family or something. In any case, the Okudas were mistaken in assuming they met when Mitchell was Kirk's student. They had already known each other 9 years previously!
One of Kirk's instructors as a midshipman is Ben Finney, and the two become close friends. Some years later the two will serve together aboard the U.S.S. Republic. "Court Martial" (TOS). The Okudas seem to have missed the fact that Kirk and Finney's Republic stint (during which Kirk was an ensign) was some years after Finney was his instructor. Which means that it needn't necessarily have occurred while he was still at the Academy, though it may have, nonetheless. "Obsession" (TOS) made two specific references: that in 2257 Kirk was a lieutenant aboard the Farragut under Captain Garrovick, and that Garrovick had been Kirk's commanding officer "from the day...[Kirk]...left the Academy." So it seems possible that Garrovick had commanded the Republic while Kirk and Finney served on her, and then took command of the Farragut, to which Kirk also transferred. However, there may be a small problem with this. Kirk was already a lieutenant when he conducted a planetary survey of Neural (see below) the same year he graduated. (See below.) Was he aboard the Republic then, or was he already aboard the Farragut? The latter seems more likely, because the Farragut was his "first deep-space assignment" according to "Obsession." So Kirk's graduation and commission to ensign, service aboard the Republic, transfer to the Farragut under the same CO, and promotion to lieutenant all occurred within one year. Or, alternatively, the Republic could indeed have been a pre-graduation assignment and Kirk was just special enough to attain rank while still a cadet. It's rather open-ended, but "Whom Gods Destroy" offers some further points that might be helpful.
Beyond this, things get vague and a bit tricky due to lack of specific dates, but by no means are they impossibly convoluted. Bear with me:
2250-2253
Kirk attends the Academy.
Kirk participates in a peace mission to Axanar after Garth of Izar's victory there. Kirk is awarded the Palm Leaf of Axanar. "Court Martial" (TOS) and "Whom Gods Destroy" (TOS), respectively. Kirk said he was "a new-fledged cadet" at the time of the Axanar peace mission. Could he have been aboard the Republic then, and could this help explain how Kirk might attain ensign rank before graduating the Academy, should we choose to follow that scenario? The conflict at Axanar was apparently of great historical importance and had something to do with Vulcans (or perhaps aliens in general) and humans becoming "brothers." Kirk apparently played a prominent role in the subsequent peace mission (winning the Palm Leaf) and he just may have distinguished himself enough to have pulled off his early promotion.
2254
Kirk graduates the Academy. See notes above. He may have already attained ensign rank and been serving on the Republic. On the other hand, with the new film depicting him as being capable of finishing the Academy in 3 years, it's possible he graduated in 2253 as ensign and the scenario with Garrovick commanding both the Republic and the Farragut would hold.
Promoted to lieutenant, Kirk conducts a planetary survey on Neural and befriends a hunter named Tyree. 13 years prior to "A Private Little War" (TOS). As reasoned above, he was (probably) already aboard the Farragut at this point, under the command of Captain Garrovick.
2257
Lt. Kirk is serving on the Farragut, when it is attacked by a dikironium cloud creature. 200 people, half the ship's crew, are killed, including Captain Garrovick. Kirk had been operating the ship's phasers at the time of the incident, and blamed himself for having hesitated when firing on the creature, though in fact his momentary delay had no effect on the outcome of the attack. Eleven years prior to "Obsession" (TOS).
At some point after this, Lt. Kirk left shipboard assignments and became an instructor at Starfleet Academy. I would suggest that it was soon after, and that it was direct result of his guilt over the incident.
2259
Gary Mitchell enters Starfleet Academy. One of his instructors is Lt. Kirk, "a stack of books with legs" in whose class he is told by upperclassmen he must "either think or sink." "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (TOS). Assumes Mitchell was 17 at the time of entrance. At some point, Mitchell sets up Kirk with a blonde lab technician who may or may not be Carol Marcus, but it is not clear exactly when.
At some point between this and 2264-65 (depending on when Kirk took command of the Enterprise in relation to when the 5-year mission started) Kirk gets back on the command track and is promoted to Captain. According to the TOS writer's guide, he was the youngest Captain in Starfleet at the time, and his first command (during which he asks for Mitchell to serve under him, and we may presume the incident on Dimorus described in WNMHGB occurred) was a destroyer-type vessel.
I have a question for Peregrinus and others who seem to prefer other TOS dating schemes: what is the reasoning behind it? Why not have the 5-year mission from 2265-2270 and stay consistent with the only concrete dating reference we have, namely Icheb's line in "Q2" (VGR)? Is it only the "15 years" reference in TWOK, because firstly that could easily be an approximate figure and secondly we have no hard specific date for that film at all...
[ May 26, 2009, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
I note that in the Altered Timeline, Spock is a Commander in 2258. Presumably a full Commander at that, since he's also already First Officer of the new Enterprise. Now, we could go on to debate whether that represents any great change in his personal timeline given that for most of TOS s1 he had Lt. Commander stripes (I can't remember what the consensus is on that little niggle); obviously in the original timeline he and Kirk would never have come into opposition over the Kobayashi Maru test since Kirk graduated in 2254 not 2258, when Spock would have been just a Lieutenant or Ensign and presumably assigned (or just about to be) to the original-timeline Enterprise. But, my point is, Spock being a Commander at age 28 doesn't seem to be considered all that unusual - for the altered timeline at least (wasn't it implied in TOS that Spock's path up the career ladder hadn't been all that smooth because of his mixed-race heritage?), so the six years between 2259 and 2265 would be plenty of time for Kirk to work through both Commander grades prior to commission as a Captain in 2265.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Adapted from a much-earlier posting on another board, here's an examination of ages. . .
Scott 2222 (44) - Doohan was 46 - Pegg is 37 McCoy 2227 (39) - Kelley was 46 - Urban is 35 Spock 2230 (36) - Nimoy was 35 - Quinto is 30 Kirk 2233 (33) - Shatner was 35 - Pine is 27 Uhura 22? (20something) - Nichols was 33 - Saldana is 29 Sulu 22? (20something) - Takei was 29 - Cho is 35 Chekov 2245 (22 in 2267, when he first appeared in TOS season 2, consistent with going to the Starfleet Academy at age 18 and graduating after a standard 4 years) - Koenig was 31 when he started on the show - Yelchin is 18
Of course, add another year onto the new actors' ages by the time the film comes out. . .
. . . Which puts Chekov as supposedly age 13 in 2258! The notion that Uhura would already be at the Academy in 2255 isn't a problem, she could have started in 2254 and thus be four years younger than Kirk (and due to graduate in 2258). It's impossible to say when Sulu went to the Academy, but I'd guess he might have been there at least two years in the new film.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I note that in the Altered Timeline, Spock is a Commander in 2258. Presumably a full Commander at that, since he's also already First Officer of the new Enterprise. Now, we could go on to debate whether that represents any great change in his personal timeline given that for most of TOS s1 he had Lt. Commander stripes (I can't remember what the consensus is on that little niggle)
Not only by his stripes, but his rank was explicitly given as Lieutenant Commander by the court computer in "Court Martial" (TOS). Everyone getting too high in rank too early and too quickly was definitely one of my biggest problems with the new movie. It's not only unbelievable, but it leaves little room for character growth and advancement from here onward.
quote:Which puts Chekov as supposedly age 13 in 2258! The notion that Uhura would already be at the Academy in 2255 isn't a problem, she could have started in 2254 and thus be four years younger than Kirk (and due to graduate in 2258). It's impossible to say when Sulu went to the Academy, but I'd guess he might have been there at least two years in the new film.
The more I look at it, the more it becomes clear that trying to shoehorn everyone in together at one time in one movie was just a stupid idea. All the subtle developments that occurred for the characters on the series are completely lost. (McCoy and Chekov joining as the series went on, Sulu and Uhura changing positions, Spock having been with the ship longer than anyone else, his relationship with Kirk evolving from prickly CO/XO to friendship, etc.) I understand the rationale behind it, but it's just too hokey and contrived for my taste.
And they really ought to have at least consulted someone with a passing familiarity with naval ranks and the chain of command. That stuff was just all over the place in the film.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I have a question for Peregrinus and others who seem to prefer other TOS dating schemes: what is the reasoning behind it? Why not have the 5-year mission from 2265-2270 and stay consistent with the only concrete dating reference we have, namely Icheb's line in "Q2" (VGR)? Is it only the "15 years" reference in TWOK, because firstly that could easily be an approximate figure and secondly we have no hard specific date for that film at all...
A few things... The dating referent Icheb used was taken from the Okudas' Chronology, which they didn't reasearch enough, and a lot of their dates were arbitrary for that era. I do my best to go with the earliest references, and attendant references. Later (post-1986/'87) Trek starts becoming a little suspect for me due to the Okudas' incomplete research methodology.
We had two dates spoken clearly on-screen, in different contexts. First, in Star Trek II, Kirk read the 2283 date off the bottle of Romulan Ale. Associated dialogue indicates that is not the current year. That automatically makes it at least 2284, more likely later still. I have no problem with Mike's 2285 date here, as nothing contradicts it.
The script indicates this is Kirk's fiftieth birthday, and even though there's no dialogue to this effect, that's the motivation behind Meyer's direction and Shatner's performance. That yields a birth year of 2235. The good (for characters and historical events, not technical stuff) novel Final Frontier established that Kirk was ten when the Enterprise was launched, which would be 2245, which again lines up with the Okuda chronology.
When possible, I prefer not to contradict it, as it's the go-to source for the current crop of writers. But I won't hesitate to counter it when it gets something wrong.
The writer's bible for TOS' first season said that Kirk was "about 34", even though Shatner was 36 at the time. Close enough. Kirk's birthday is late March, so the events in Star Trek II were most likely an end-of-term cadet training cruise. First season's "Charlie X" was Thanksgiving on Earth, ergo late November. Maybe the same year as "Where No Man Has Gone Before", maybe not. I presume same year, with the rest of first season being the next year. This is where "Space Seed" is.
So I did a couple things there. 2285-15=2270. 2235+34=2269. So I have "Space Seed" taking place in late 2269, since Star Trek II is not even three months into its year.
I treat Mitchell's file as his age at the time of his testing, and not his age at the time of the episode. He'd be 11 years younger than Kirk at that point, if accurate -- which would make him 10 or 11 at the time he had Kirk as an instructor. It's also out of whack with his rank and Gary Lockwood's age at the time.
The other referent is the 2364 date from TNG's "The Neutral Zone", upon which all dates from that era are based. They still did their math wrong from time to time, mainly with TOS era characters (Sarek and McCoy). But it's mostly reliable. And it gives us the other end of the TOS era as a result. Thanks to Generations, we know the TNG-era events of that film were 78 years after the launch of the Enterprise-B. 2371-78=2293. June, going by the stardate.
So, using later stuff as precedent... I have Kirk take command of the Enterprise in 2266 or so, oversee its refitting, then take it out on his (first?) five-year mission from 2268 through 2273. He gets promoted to [Commodore] and Wil Decker oversees its next refit as its intended Captain. In 2275 or so, the V'Ger Incident gets Kirk the Enterprise back. We don't know what happens next, but somewhere between here and 2284, Kirk leaves Starfleet, takes up with Antonia, and then comes back to Starfleet -- apparantly as an Academy instructor (again) -- in 2284.
It's Icheb's line that is out of sync with those dating referents, so I ignore it -- and wish Okuda would revise his Chronology to be less arbitrary than "adding three hundred to the original airdates". There's plenty that can be deduced from aired/screened material, their scripts, and a good chunk of the novels and attendant "EU" stuff without needing to pull stuff out of asses.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Wasn't there a big, hotly-debated dating thread on here somewhere? I remember a lot of it going over my head or just seeming to focus on trivial points, but that's just me. I think it involved placing TMp as much later than 2271 (which seemed sensible, its timing is just too damned close to any conceivable end of the five year mission), and, I'm not sure, requiring TWoK to be 20 years after TMP because that would make the "Enterprise is 20 years old" comment make sense if that Admiral was talking about the Refit.
posted
Hmm. Maybe. I'm sure I can remember some discussion in which someone recalculated all dates almost totally from scratch, and TMP ended especially "out there" in relation to when we're used to thinking it was set. Perhaps not. I dunno.
In TMP Decker says Voyager VI was launched "more than 300 years ago." Since Voyager I and Voyager II were launched in 1977, some have reasoned that the film cannot take place any earlier than 2278.
Of course, we already know of instances where Trek's spaceflight history and real-life spaceflight history differ considerably. Or Decker could have really meant to say "nearly 300 years ago" and gotten caught up in the moment.
Also, in TSFS Morrow says the Enterprise is "20 years old," which cannot be possible, so some have rationalized that it is relative to the TMP refit. This doesn't really work either, but it could be a reason why you might have seen a wacky date for TMP in someone's chronology.
@Jonah:
Icheb's 2270 reference was not taken from the Chronology, which placed the end of the 5-year mission in 2269. I was specifically rather delighted at the time, because it left room for TAS to follow TOS.
In any case, and notwithstanding your personal predilection to selectively discount material produced after a particular cutoff date, I think specifically quoted dates and lengths of time not likely to be rounded off have to take precedence over less precise references.
What I do think can be fudged a bit is when in relation to each other TOS episodes occur, since they were originally shown out of sequence anyway. Add to that the fact that Khan remembers Chekov being around during "Space Seed" and what little leeway we have in dating TWOK based on internal references--a "15 years" that could really represent anything between 14-18 and what may or may not be a Romulan bottle's vintage date given in Earth standard format--and GEN, and I think it can be smoothed over.
It's also possible that Kirk regards his 5 years aboard the Enterprise as one chunk or block of time, a single mission just as implied by the TOS opening monologue, and doesn't distinguish in his mind between one year or another within that period. Thus, his "15 years" line could be in relation to the end of that mission, 2270.
Besides, from the new film we have independently confirmed 2233 as Kirk's year of birth. (Winona was already in labor at the time of Nero's incursion.) Essentially, though this is admittedly circular logic, it means that "The Deadly Years" (TOS) must have indeed taken place in 2267.
Also, even if one chooses to disregard Mitchell's age as given in WNMHGB, it still has a negligible effect on Kirk's overall chronology.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Hm. Forgot the Klingon prosecutor from Star Trek VI saying McCoy had been the Enterprise's CMO for 27 years... That muffs things. Back to the rationalization that Piper was filling in while McCoy was off doing something?
My take on the Klingon thing. We have three references: "Day of the Dove", Star Trek VI, and "First Contact". Plus the Enterprise pilot.
First contact in 2151. McCoy's line from "Day of the Dove" and Spock's from Star Trek VI both point to "unremitting" hostilities starting c.2220. So one wonders how much reconciliation followed by miscommunication there was between those two dates...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
It doesn't alter things at all, but for the record there is no McCoy line from "Day Of The Dove." Wherever the Okudas got that from (maybe a script draft?) it was not in the aired episode.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: @Lee:
In TMP Decker says Voyager VI was launched "more than 300 years ago." Since Voyager I and Voyager II were launched in 1977, some have reasoned that the film cannot take place any earlier than 2278.
Of course, we already know of instances where Trek's spaceflight history and real-life spaceflight history differ considerably.
I like to think the Voyager probe series was launched earlier in the Trek-verse, personally.
quote:Also, in TSFS Morrow says the Enterprise is "20 years old," which cannot be possible, so some have rationalized that it is relative to the TMP refit. This doesn't really work either, but it could be a reason why you might have seen a wacky date for TMP in someone's chronology.
I like to think this was the refit between Pike and Kirk. Weak, but the dates more-or-less jibe.
quote:@Jonah:
Icheb's 2270 reference was not taken from the Chronology, which placed the end of the 5-year mission in 2269. I was specifically rather delighted at the time, because it left room for TAS to follow TOS.
In any case, and notwithstanding your personal predilection to selectively discount material produced after a particular cutoff date, I think specifically quoted dates and lengths of time not likely to be rounded off have to take precedence over less precise references.
I'm sorry. I consider any dates derived from Okuda's chronology unreliable, due to the source. I hadn't realised Icheb's line was in conflict with the Chronology dates. Been a while since I've read it. I can even probably manage to push the five-year mission dates back a couple years -- but don't try to use the new film as supporting evidence for when events occur in the Prime timeline. Chekov's birthdate is off, and Kirk seems to be missing an older brother, etc...
quote:What I do think can be fudged a bit is when in relation to each other TOS episodes occur, since they were originally shown out of sequence anyway.
Well, even when I rearrange them into stardate order, "Space Seed" does a good job of maintaining its position.
quote:Add to that the fact that Khan remembers Chekov being around during "Space Seed" and what little leeway we have in dating TWOK based on internal references--a "15 years" that could really represent anything between 14-18 and what may or may not be a Romulan bottle's vintage date given in Earth standard format--and GEN, and I think it can be smoothed over.
Well, I have no problem fudging Chekove being there on a different watch prior to being moved to Alpha. But the latter... 1) I personally don't see Kirk being able to read Romulan, 2) I don't see Romulans having their years that close to one of our arbitrary dating systems, 3) I see this "border ship" that supplies McCoy labelling the bottles in such a way as to be clear for their customers.
Still, I think we're doing well that we have things locked in to a two-year range (2233-2283/2235-2285). The Icheb dates and the new film jibe with the former, the 2245 launch date of the Enterprise and the Romulan ale bottle support the latter. Beats the hell out of the disparity with the Spaceflight Chronology/FASA.
quote:Besides, from the new film we have independently confirmed 2233 as Kirk's year of birth. (Winona was already in labor at the time of Nero's incursion.) Essentially, though this is admittedly circular logic, it means that "The Deadly Years" (TOS) must have indeed taken place in 2267.
You can probably already guess what I'm going to say to that.
quote:Also, even if one chooses to disregard Mitchell's age as given in WNMHGB, it still has a negligible effect on Kirk's overall chronology.
Just pointing it out.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Mimmy, that's probably what I'm thinking - that "more than 300 years" placing TMP post-2278. Which then allowed for a second, consecutive 5-year mission immediately/soon after the first (rather than conventional wisdom has it, after TMP - if it happened at all). I didn't like the idea at the time, but now I look at it again, given TMP grew out of the Phase II project which envisioned such a scenario, who knows?
It also occurs to me, how can anyone remember every single specific space-probe launched? It's just not feasible. Rather than assume Decker* got his dates wrong and mistakenly said "more than" when he meant "nearly," you could as well assume he was thinking of the wrong space-probe! For instance, maybe he was thinking of MARINER 6 (launched 1969); add to this the fact that Voyagers 1 and 2 were originally Mariners 11 and 12, and there's all sorts of possibilities for confusion.
* A note on Decker's mental state. Some of you here probably CAN remember useless info like dates of robotic-probe launches. Well, first let's see you:-
Lose your new command to the man who'd reccomended you for it
Watch as the transporter you'd supposedly helped to repair killed two of your crew slowly and horribly
Seen the woman you love apparently vapourised by an alien artifact
Seen the same woman resurrected as an identica, but soulless, drone AND TTHEN BEEN REQUIRED TO TRY TO FORM AN EMOTIONAL OR EVEN SEXUAL CONNECTION WITH IT
. . . THEN try to remember spaceflight history from three centuries before.
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: First, in Star Trek II, Kirk read the 2283 date off the bottle of Romulan Ale.
One thing that always got me with that, why would the Romulans be putting an Earth date (or more to the point, even a Gregorian Calendar date in the age of Stardates) when Romulan Ale is illegal in the Federation? It make no sense to date your produce for a market in which you're not going to be able to trade it. It would be like someone here opening a brewery, dating the beer using the French Republican Calendar, and then exporting it to China. Would be far more logical if 2283 is the year on the Romulan calendar...and given the whole Vulcan-Romulan split was somewhere around 2000-years ago, it's not too much of a jump if the Romulans started their dating system from that point.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Mimmy, that's probably what I'm thinking - that "more than 300 years" placing TMP post-2278. Which then allowed for a second, consecutive 5-year mission immediately/soon after the first
The problem with this is that Kirk makes a big show at Decker about how he'd spent 5 years out dealing with the unknown. You'd think that if he'd spent more than that he wouldn't have failed to mention it.
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: ...but don't try to use the new film as supporting evidence for when events occur in the Prime timeline. Chekov's birthdate is off, and Kirk seems to be missing an older brother, etc...
Events which predate Nero's incursion should be the same if we assume a parallel universe prior to said incursion. (Granted, this could be arguable, but I think the intent is clear.) Chekov's birthdate is post-incursion, so it could have changed.
As for Sam Kirk, what can I tell you? Earlier drafts of the script had him in the place of the kid Kirk calls Johnny in the film, the novelization posits that he ran away from their unstable home, in other words there are rationalizations that can be made. We never even knew how much older than Kirk he was supposed to be anyway, just considerably so. Maybe he'd moved out, maybe he was off courting Aurelan, or maybe he was at the Kirk home passed out on the couch. For whatever we wish to speculate, we just didn't see or hear about him within the context of the movie's story.
quote:Well, even when I rearrange them into stardate order, "Space Seed" does a good job of maintaining its position.
Bah, don't give me any of that stardate crap! There was never any real order or system that stardates conformed to during TOS. Even beyond that, after such a system was designed and implemented for TNG, there are scattered inconsistencies. You can't trust 'em.
quote:Well, I have no problem fudging Chekove being there on a different watch prior to being moved to Alpha.
I seem to recall a big fuss made about Chekov being a green recruit when he joined the show, though.
quote:I personally don't see Kirk being able to read Romulan, 2) I don't see Romulans having their years that close to one of our arbitrary dating systems, 3) I see this "border ship" that supplies McCoy labelling the bottles in such a way as to be clear for their customers.
[Timo]Can we even be totally sure they're talking about vintage at all, though? Maybe it's the alcohol content he's reading off the bottle?[/Timo]
Anyway, I agree it's nice that we can be as specific as we can and still have everything match up reasonably well, given the length and complexity of the franchise's history. I'd wager that there are few shows that have paid as much attention to these kinds of details as Trek has.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean there aren't people prepared to import and package the stuff. Indeed, I'd imagine a vat of the stuff would be easier to smuggle, for eventual bottling at the destination.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
