This is an interesting conversation if only because, what we've flushed out in this thread is that people rank characteristics differently.
1. Cost. Well, a maker can ask anything they want. How healthy their business was at the time, importation expenses, as well as market signalling all come to bear. Consumers were as poorly educated then as they are today, and equally susceptible to bandwagon marketing, or presuming that comparative prices were a fair indication of comparative quality. A $1.5 mil McClaren isn't 15x faster than a $100k Corvette. And there's NO WAY it has better quality. Insert Lamborguini or Ferrari, if you like. Your brother-in-law better be an exotic car mechanic!
2. Toughness. Yes, these are tools. But judging them based on how powerful a load they are proofed for, or even how many shots they can make with perfect function, doesnt really tell the tale. It's part of it, of course, but not the whole tale. How many times have you been out in public and found yourself attracted to how strong a woman looks?
3. Design features/Innovation. This is where the men get separated from the boys, at least in part. This is [in my opinion] what separates a Jacob Glahn engraved Lefever, from a Jacob Glahn engraved L.C. Smith or Parker. Wear compensating features, cocking indicators, in-frame ejectors that work every time...and a gun that can NEVER be off-face. In Britain, there were lots, and LOTS of innovation from W&C Scott. Some Premier guns are as well trimmed, designed and built as any Purdey, Boss or Holland. But they never positioned themselves as a "best only" maker...they were Britain's Remington. Plus some of the gents who came up with innovations in Britain moved from firm to firm, so it's not always clear whether the credit applied to the inventor or the maker. The Deely's mechanism, the Scott spindle, the cross bolt (Greener?), the dolls head (no idea who), etc. The Scott's designed their stuff, and Dan Lefever designed his guns. But where do we bestow credit to men whose names weren't on the guns...Brown at L.C. Smith, King at Parker. And would someone please write a damn book about Frank Hollenbeck?!?
4. Beauty. Has to be the #1 characteristic. When you see it, it speaks for itself. By whatever measure each individual desides.
5. Marketing. Some were way better distributed, and that success wasnt necessarily driven by any of the above. The Parker's were clearly good business men, owing to all the other things they made before they even got into guns. Ithaca, Remington and L.C. Smith were clearly well run as well. Everyone else pretty much heard the wolf behind the door at all times. But do business success/failure indicate better guns? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
On balance Britain did, and does, punch hugely above their weight in terms of it's contribution to and quality of guns, and a few other things (rock 'n roll music). Cars, food and weather...not so much. But judging Britain vs America isnt any more difficult than judging the various makes from each other, on either side of the pond.
I think beauty trumps all, coupled with...well, one man sees design, another sees popularity, and another sees strength. Thank God we have the means and freedom to choose.
NDG
