Not to add any additional fuel to this fire, but I believe a more extensive history might contribute to a better understanding of the issue, regardless of whose "side" the reader eventually takes. I think Andy did an exemplary job of describing the dispute between Rich and Sid (and their efforts to come to a resolution before Sid's passing). However, even that description could - I think - benefit from additional historical context, however anecdotal (the following narrative is, admittedly, based on my personal knowledge of the situation - I don't presume to speak for anyone else). To that end:
Rich has been making and selling BR blasters since at least the early 1990s, when I first met him. Rich's models then were based on his cast of an original, stunt BR blaster (the ones with no "pinkie cut out" on the grip). They were painted in various color schemes, and offered an led "laser sight" at the front of the Steyr receiver. By and large, Rich's were the best of the replicas offered at the time, and I presume he sold many of them (at least one to me).
In the mid-1990s Rich, Phil S., and a number of other collectors (including myself, in a limited capacity) began conducting more detailed research into the history and manufacture of the original BR blaster prop, with the goal of producing a more accurate model. The ultimate product of these efforts - for Rich and Phil S. at least - was the C&S Blaster v1, which Rich continuously updated for many years, through the v6 (I believe), just prior to Karl's publication of the WorldCon photos.
In order to create the C&S blaster, Rich and Phil did a tremendous amount of leg-work, detective-work, and tracked down the original parts used to make the BR blaster. Rich then "engineered" his model, altering casts of the original parts, and putting his unique "spin" on them to make the masters for the C&S Blaster v1. It is presumably based upon the significant work undertaken to produce the first C&S Blaster that Rich feels a sense of ownership with respect to this particular prop.
In the early 2000s, Sid obtained a C&S Blaster, and - by his own admission - pulled molds from the blaster and began to produce a virtually exact duplicate (in both metal and resin, if I recall correctly) of Rich's model. It is this act of "recasting" (I hate that word) that led to the dispute between Rich and Sid. As others have noted in this thread, Sid's understanding of the unwritten code regarding "recasting" was limited at the time. Nonetheless, Rich's criticism of Sid is entirely justified, as Sid did, in fact, cast a C&S Blaster and offer essentially identical copies for sale. (Full disclosure: I once received an early metal Sidkit in trade on a deal, but have since sold that kit.)
The story doesn't stop there, of course. After Karl's publication of the WorldCon photos, the race was on to create an even more accurate BR Blaster, and both Rich and Sid (among others) went back to the drawing board to improve upon their existing products. Since much of Sid's offering at the time was still based upon Rich's original C&S Blaster, the dispute between Rich and Sid persisted.
Sid, with the help of some forum members, sought out additional WorldCon details and parts in order to create his version of the WorldCon gun. Rich, with the help of others (including myself), did the same thing.
Sid and Rich then began offering their latest take on the WorldCon model: Rich as a built-up prop, and Sid largely as a kit. The problem - I think - from Rich's perspective was that Sid's model still owed something to the C&S Blaster, albeit less in every successive generation, and that Sid was able to offer his model as a kit when Rich didn't, undercutting his prices.
I have seen the most recent SidKit WorldCon model (produced just prior to Sid's passing), and it is remarkable, with very good attention to detail. Some members of this forum (e.g. KramStarr) have built absolutely amazing WorldCon reproductions based on the SidKit model. It does have some deficiencies - namely the metal used (which is very soft and very heavy) and the fact that the "5223" stamped into the receiver does not match the original in size, orientation, or font.
I have also seen the most recent Rich Coyle WorldCon. I own one. In my personal opinion, it is a superior prop both because of the materials (Rich's pewter is harder and finishes better) and attention to detail (e.g. the "5223" inscription directly matches the original).
Moreover, Rich's model is an "original" in a way that Sid's never can be. Rich and Phil did the legwork to bring the original version of this prop to fruition, more than ten years ago. However good it is (and it is good), Sid's model will always suffer - at least reputationally - because it started as a "recast" of the C&S. I don't dispute the fact that Sid eventually went back and re-worked his model significantly. He did. But without Rich's original C&S Blaster, Sid would not have been able to produce a quality model.
Note also that a number of other prop builders have made BR blasters. Craig K. made a firing model. Rick Ross sculpted and cast two magnificent interpretations of the prop. A Japanese airsoft and blank-firing model were produced. Most recently, Tomenosuke (sp?) produced their own model, made after taking first-hand measurements from the original hero prop.
Rich has never challenged any of these products, even though some arguably owe a debt to the C&S Blaster (not Rick's models, of course). Really, the only discussion that seems to raise his ire is one regarding the SidKit. I can understand that, as Rich justifiably took pride in the research and craftsmanship that went into the original C&S. Sid's throwing some rubber over the C&S has to have hurt, however much Sid revised the "recast" in later generations.
At the end of the day, it comes down to how comfortable one is purchasing a model that originated with a "recast." Sid's supporters rightly emphasize the significant re-working that Sid did in connection with producing his version of the WorldCon model. Rich's supporters rightly emphasize Rich's decade-long history with this prop, and his production of the original C&S. There is some legitimacy to both perspectives, I suppose.
Given the choice, I'd go for the Coyle. (And for the newbies and trolls: I may have a low post count, and didn't join the forum until a few years ago, but I have been at this for almost twenty years, maintaining good relationships with almost all of "heavy hitters" around here for years, which is a hard thing to do given the sometimes unbearable politics of this hobby - so believe me, I know what I'm talking about.)
lol:lol Troll.
