I'm a bit confused by the recent sentencing of the late O. Winston Link's ex-wife. Did she have the negatives or just the prints? Could 30 paper photos of trains possibly be worth $350,000? And does trying to sell them on e-Bay constitute putting a 68 year old woman in jail for three years while real crooks like Ken Lay are still walking around? Am I missing something here?

http://www.nyjournalnews.com/newsroom/042004/b01p20link.html
ryarger@rypn.org

> I'm a bit confused by the recent sentencing
> of the late O. Winston Link's ex-wife. Did
> she have the negatives or just the prints?
> Could 30 paper photos of trains possibly be
> worth $350,000? And does trying to sell them
> on e-Bay constitute putting a 68 year old
> woman in jail for three years while real
> crooks like Ken Lay are still walking
> around? Am I missing something here?

Bob, this article only focused on the 30 prints they tried to sell on ebay. I believe they've already found much of the lost material in a storage facilty, including more prints and negatives.


SJHussar@aol.com

Newsday 5/31/03
Hundreds of photographer's stolen
prints surface in Pennsylvania
By JIM FITZGERALD
Associated Press Writer
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- Hundreds of prints stolen from the
late photographer O. Winston Link _ and some negatives
that may never have been printed from _ have been found
in a rented Pennsylvania storage room following the arrest
of his ex-wife, the Westchester district attorney said
Friday.
The storage unit had been rented to Edward Hayes, the
new husband of Link's ex-wife, Conchita Mendoza Link,
said District Attorney Jeanine Pirro. Conchita Link spent
six years in prison for stealing 1,400 of the photographer's
prints, then worth $2 million, but she never disclosed
where they were.


SJHussar@aol.com

And does trying to sell them
> on e-Bay constitute putting a 68 year old
> woman in jail for three years while real
> crooks like Ken Lay are still walking
> around? Am I missing something here?

Yes, I would argue that you are. Failure of justice in one case is no reason not to pursue justice in the next. We do not stop prosecuting people for murder because an individual murderer is occasionally never caught or is acquitted due to procedural or other error.

Conchita Link stole from her husband, was convicted of it in a court of law on ambundant evidence, and still held onto and conceiled the stolen property in defiance of the court.

As for it just being photos on paper--Mr. Link was a professional photographer. Those prints were his intellectual property, part of his life's work, and part of his sole means of economic support. It's no different than stealing a carpenter's tools, an architect's drawings and blueprints, or an accountant's computer with all his records on it. She was depriving him not only of his creative output, but also of part of his means of making a living.

As for her age--I do not believe that there is an age at which one became exempt from obeying the law in general, and the rulings of an individual judge in a criminal case in specific. I for one do not feel that becuase Ken Lay has not yet been indicted I have a license to steal.

Sorry to disagree so firmly, but I really have strong feelings on this issue.

eledbetter@rypn.org

Don't forget that at one point she had virtually imprisoned Link in his own home. When this was discovered by one of Link's friends, she took off and went into hiding. Link discovered that many of his negatives and prints were missing, and a warrant was issued for her arrest on theft charges. Later when she was caught, she refused to divulge the location of the prints and negatives that she was known to have and somehow got away again.

I would guess that this pattern of behavior plus skipping bail, in addition to the actual theft had a lot to do with her sentence.

Regards,
Hugh

The Ultimate Steam Page
whodom2001@yahoo.com

Additionally, I would point out that she was out on parole when she tried to sell stolen property, having served a fraction of the time to which she had been sentenced for stealing a huge number of original prints AND negatives. I've seen what original Link prints go for, and the value of 350,000 for 30 is in fact conservative.

This woman kept Link locked and bound in his own basement for months, telling friends he was too ill to see anyone. All the while she was spiriting off an irreplacable piece of Americana that Link almost singlehandedly recorded for posterity, intending to sell them to the highest bidder.

She deserves more jail time than she is likely to get.


The Works of O. Winston Link
ebtrr@spikesys.com

Maybe that guy that takes all the flash pictures of our trains at Plattsburg is onto something. Guess I'm in the wrong business.

ryarger@rypn.org

> I'm a bit confused by the recent sentencing
> of the late O. Winston Link's ex-wife. Did
> she have the negatives or just the prints?
> Could 30 paper photos of trains possibly be
> worth $350,000? And does trying to sell them
> on e-Bay constitute putting a 68 year old
> woman in jail for three years while real
> crooks like Ken Lay are still walking
> around? Am I missing something here?

You sure are.

She had ALREADY served prison time for her abuse of Link and her theft of his property. She had, as I recalled, served the maximum time allowed by sentencing guidelines, in part because only a limited amount of the purloined material was recovered. Then, after her release from prison, she (and her new husband) attempted to profit from the remaining loot kept hidden from law enforcement. This is no better than a jewel thief or Nazi looter digging up the treasure after 20 years in prison and hoping to profit from it.

We are dealing with a woman whom, as documented in one ABC news report, an entire court, from prosecutors to jury to judge, nodded silently at the pronouncement by a prosecution witness: "Conchita....... is....... EVIL.... "

As for the value: Yes. Bear in mind that, decades ago (1975 or so), you could buy Link prints for $200-300. About a decade ago, a friend of mine purchased two signed prints from Link, just before the Conchita hell, for about $1500-2000 each if I recall right. The rule of thumb is that signed prints double in value after the artist's death. Regrettably as well, all the notoriety and drama of the last years of Link's life--the Conchita evil, the hard times, etc.--has only driven the value of the real McCoys even higher--especially if negatives are recovered that have photos that were rarely or never printed in Link's day. (I *believe* the Link Museum is supposedly on the lookout for up to several dozen known Link photos that have never been "recovered" or for which they do not have a representative print. Rest assured that if you are a collector sitting on a signed Link print of a good N&W subject that can be documented as a Link work but is not in the Link Museum collection or books, it's worth a minimum of $10,000, probably far more.)

One other note: I believe Thomas Garver, Link's assistant for years, might still be authorized to print from the original negatives. But even with the original negatives, you're a generation removed from Link's work. Link personally hand-printed each and every one of his photographs, many with custom dodging and burning masks to adjust the flaws of the specific negative. This, in the photo darkroom, is a painstaking, laborious process, done for long time periods per photo at very low light output to give time to adjust each print properly. It can be argued that, even with the original negatives, you'll never have a "real" Link print made again.


LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

> You sure are.

> She had ALREADY served prison time for her
> abuse of Link and her theft of his property.
> She had, as I recalled, served the maximum
> time allowed by sentencing guidelines, in
> part because only a limited amount of the
> purloined material was recovered. Then,
> after her release from prison, she (and her
> new husband) attempted to profit from the
> remaining loot kept hidden from law
> enforcement. This is no better than a jewel
> thief or Nazi looter digging up the treasure
> after 20 years in prison and hoping to
> profit from it.

> We are dealing with a woman whom, as
> documented in one ABC news report, an entire
> court, from prosecutors to jury to judge,
> nodded silently at the pronouncement by a
> prosecution witness: "Conchita.......
> is....... EVIL.... "

> As for the value: Yes. Bear in mind that,
> decades ago (1975 or so), you could buy Link
> prints for $200-300. About a decade ago, a
> friend of mine purchased two signed prints
> from Link, just before the Conchita hell,
> for about $1500-2000 each if I recall right.
> The rule of thumb is that signed prints
> double in value after the artist's death.
> Regrettably as well, all the notoriety and
> drama of the last years of Link's life--the
> Conchita evil, the hard times, etc.--has
> only driven the value of the real McCoys
> even higher--especially if negatives are
> recovered that have photos that were rarely
> or never printed in Link's day. (I *believe*
> the Link Museum is supposedly on the lookout
> for up to several dozen known Link photos
> that have never been "recovered"
> or for which they do not have a
> representative print. Rest assured that if
> you are a collector sitting on a signed Link
> print of a good N&W subject that can be
> documented as a Link work but is not in the
> Link Museum collection or books, it's worth
> a minimum of $10,000, probably far more.)

> One other note: I believe Thomas Garver,
> Link's assistant for years, might still be
> authorized to print from the original
> negatives. But even with the original
> negatives, you're a generation removed from
> Link's work. Link personally hand-printed
> each and every one of his photographs, many
> with custom dodging and burning masks to
> adjust the flaws of the specific negative.
> This, in the photo darkroom, is a
> painstaking, laborious process, done for
> long time periods per photo at very low
> light output to give time to adjust each
> print properly. It can be argued that, even
> with the original negatives, you'll never
> have a "real" Link print made
> again.

Reminds me of the Hillbilly who waas found not guilty of stealing chickens, " Judge, does that mean I get to keep the chickens??"
Jim Adams

> Maybe that guy that takes all the flash
> pictures of our trains at Plattsburg is onto
> something. Guess I'm in the wrong business.

It's not that they are flash photos, or even that they were technologically ahead of their time. Link's photos were not just pictures of trains. They were a representation of the culture, people and landscape of the railroad and the communities it served. Many of his photos show only a part of the locomotive or leave it in the background, thus emphasizing the relation between the railroad and the cultural landscape rather than the trains themselves. The representation he created was of the end of an era after which it would never be the same. The fancy methods and technology were a means, not an end. The photos stand apart from the rail community as works of art, not photos of trains.

At least some see it that way...


The Works of O. Winston Link
ebtrr@spikesys.com

I don't think anyone questioned Link's talent and hard work as a photographer. I do think the Conchita story has been over-hyped, especially in the choo choo media, and I still can't understand why anyone would pay fantastic sums for photographic prints when one can easily see them in books and even on the internet. And I didn't think his train photos were his main livelihood. I always understood he was a well-respected and well-paid industrial photographer, who began the train photos as a hobby.

> It's not that they are flash photos, or even
> that they were technologically ahead of
> their time. Link's photos were not just
> pictures of trains. They were a
> representation of the culture, people and
> landscape of the railroad and the
> communities it served. Many of his photos
> show only a part of the locomotive or leave
> it in the background, thus emphasizing the
> relation between the railroad and the
> cultural landscape rather than the trains
> themselves. The representation he created
> was of the end of an era after which it
> would never be the same. The fancy methods
> and technology were a means, not an end. The
> photos stand apart from the rail community
> as works of art, not photos of trains.

> At least some see it that way...


ryarger@rypn.org

> I don't think anyone questioned Link's
> talent and hard work as a photographer. I do
> think the Conchita story has been
> over-hyped, especially in the choo choo
> media, and I still can't understand why
> anyone would pay fantastic sums for
> photographic prints when one can easily see
> them in books and even on the internet. And
> I didn't think his train photos were his
> main livelihood. I always understood he was
> a well-respected and well-paid industrial
> photographer, who began the train photos as
> a hobby.

To be sure, there IS a fair question about the worthiness of paying huge sums for an artwork when (as in this case) none of the money goes to either the artist or his rightful heirs. I, for one, wouldn't pay "list" for a Link print if the money went to a dealer or collector instead of Link himself.

But to those who have actually handled Link photos (as I have), your comparison above is like saying "Why restore steam locomotives when you have photos and movies?" or "Why ride behind steam in open-window cars when you have Amtrak?"

Maybe "It's an art thing--you wouldn't understand......"

LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

> The
> photos stand apart from the rail community
> as works of art, not photos of trains.

> At least some see it that way...

So where can one see some of these Link photos on-line? I went to Coleman's website but the links to photos either don't work or don't go to Link photos.

Mike


mike211@yknet.ca

Try to O. Winston Link Museum. Even though the gallery is not online there are other images throughout the site.

http://www.linkmuseum.org/index.html

O. Winston Link Museum
eledbetter@rypn.org

> I do think the Conchita story has been
> over-hyped, especially in the choo choo
> media

Probably so, but there is a great sense of satifaction from her getting her just deserves after screwing such a talented man. I know I appreciated hearing about it.

> and I still can't understand why
> anyone would pay fantastic sums for
> photographic prints when one can easily see
> them in books and even on the internet.

As with all things, demand dictates price. I could never afford one and if I could I probably could not justify it. I'd be as happy with the art prints readily for sale. In any event, clearly someone values them enough to pay those prices, and that is a positive reflection on the work.

> And
> I didn't think his train photos were his
> main livelihood. I always understood he was
> a well-respected and well-paid industrial
> photographer, who began the train photos as
> a hobby.

They wern't when he was working. They were not even published until the 1980's and not until the 1990's did they camand such prices. As he grew older less able to work, and his railroad work was discovered, the sale of prints became his major source of income as I understand.

ebtrr@spikesys.com