Don’t know of any specific clues to that time period, except perhaps when Mortimer see’s Clint’s photo in the newspaper … Perhaps if you have the Blu-ray, it could be possible to zoom in and check the date … maybe even the hotel ledger in El Paso, when Clint scratches out Senor Martinez’ name ???
As a guess I’d say it’s not long after his San Miguel adventure 
I’m sure both are meant by Leone to be set in the 70s, the classical western time. As far as I remember it the newspapers in FAFDM are also from these years.
I actually think AFOD comes after FAFDM… If you look at the beginning of Fistful Joe’s hat has what looks like a bullet hole in the front which could easily come from his “hat duel” with Mortimer, in GBU and For a Few… it looks more like a piercing. Then again I suppose he could become Manco after getting his hand crushed at the end of the first film. It’s mysterious but that’s all part of the charm for me.
1 Like
Could be … don’t forget the bullet holes left in the poncho by Ramon - Must have had a supply of fresh ponchos stashed somewhere or he had it repaired before appearing in ‘White Rocks’ 
1 Like
Having a very lazy day, just pondering some of these Leone questions … 
Looks like Monday, June 15 1873 … but a BD capture could do more justice … anyone? I’m dying to read what’s happening in Tucumcari 
and it’s of some nerdish interest there’s also a story on the Mission San Antonio, obviously not mentioned in the trilogy until GBU !
PS: Regarding, ‘Joe, Manco, Blondie’s’ poncho and the bullet holes … He’s wearing the garment back to front, and the repairs can be seen as he enters the hotel in ‘El Paso’. So it looks like this one is 2nd in the series. Though, no doubt I’ll get an argument on that question LOL 
Almost right: Monday June 15 1872
So FaFDM it is set before the Taylor v. Taintor decision.
Editor of the paper: Albert Grimalt
2 Likes
Had to look that up … interesting info 
Naughty Clint!
Too hasty there.
As the paper is in the middle of a bond book, probably the 1972 volume of the El Paso Tribune, FaFDM is set no earlier than in 1973, after the said decision. So Clint could be a little cocky taking the sheriff’s star earlier on in the film; since killing the Morton brothers in Red Hull, Montana (they were Hank, Jim and Red Morton by the way) he had recived some law enforcement authority himself.
Cannot help you with the incident in Tucumcari, except it might involve two bandidos.
As for San Antonio, the story reads something like “two men whose name nobody knows arrived in San Antonio a few days ago and stopped in front of the old church. They were driving an old wagon … and appeared to be very tired … without saying a word to anybody, they … and drove the carriage … the old mission …”
1 Like
You must have eyes like a hawk, or you were viewing the Blu Ray version ? 
The german BR on a heavy Denon player on a Samsung 55" screen, and a recent eye operation, does the trick 
1 Like
I like this kind of details in a movie. Without today’s techniques we would not be able to find out stuff like that.
It is hard to read these kind of stuff in a movie theater so this kind of details could have been avoided.
I would love to believe FFOD picks up right where GBU ended but since GBU takes place during the war and it seems many here feel FFOD and FAFDM are set in the 70’s then too time would have passed. But if for amusement purposes we want to believe that they happen in that order there is a reasonable answer as to what Blondie did with the gold in GBU. As someone suggested here maybe Blondie was arrested and the gold confiscated. That’s why in the TV debut of FFOD in the 1970’s they have that preface (where his character is played by Harry Dean Stanton) where he’s being released from prison but instructed to gather information about San Miguel.
I don’t think the historic timeline is too important really, so long as the movies entertain - The fact that GBU is set earlier but arrived last in the series, is down to economics, rather than an intended trilogy.
Similar to Star Wars fans bewilderment over why parts 1,2 and 3 have more advanced technology than the original 3 chapters. There was simply a lot more money to play with after the success of the original story.
Don’t even mention this abomination!
LOL … that’s the word for it. 
Wasn’t it done to appease the advertising sponsors, who didn’t like the idea of Eastwood’s character appearing immoral and money grabbing! … that’s fucking hilarious, coming from a bunch of greedy corporate assholes.
Certainly, Eastwood’s character is in it for the money … but he does give it away to Marisol & Family … and at the end of the movie rides away on the same shabby mule he arrived on at the beginning.
Shame that he doesn’t mention to ‘Marisol, Julio and baby Jesus’, that the Rojo’s men are coming down the road at high speed, when he tells the family to get across the border as quickly as possible, … (they would have been captured or murdered instantly)
Exactly.
That’s why I have always liked to think of it as the end of the story, if looking at it as a trilogy, that is, which you of course not have to do.
1 Like
This is exactly the reason I was defending Blu Rays in the blu ray releases thread. Having that much larger of a picture really compensates for the small things like color balance and print damage (to me at least).
Here’s another “Joe” for you Stanton. This time from “Blade Runner 2049”:
I know that, actually nobody has written here anything I did not know before.
Still if Leone wanted Joe not to be his real name, he should have made that clear, but he did not. No dialogue like: “What’s your name” “You can call me Joe”
And your BR49 example is a good example for my point of view, cause there is absolutely no ambiguity about how Joe is meant to be understood in that case.
Also the working title Ray the Magnificent indicates that Leone wanted him always to have a name. Especially as Yojimbo already contains that found-name motive.
And still, Joe is a real name, and if someone is called Joe in a film or book my first thought would not be that it is not his real name. Unless like in your BR49 example gives it a different context.
And if it is not explained in FoD, there must be some kind of idea behind Eastwood giving a no-name, but there is nothing in that idea which would give the film anything positive. Whatever Joe is, he is not a normal guy, he is not an average Joe, not your average type, fellow or guy. He is special.
He doesn’t need a name, but then Leone should have avoided to give him one, which would not have been the slightest problem.
Well actually the ambiguity is exactly the point - that’s why it’s a clever line.