Would depend upon the criteria. 'Most influential' would HAFTA include Roy Weatherby and Parker Ackley to name only 2 (not my favorites but certainly QUITE influential). 'Most aesthetically pleasing' OTOH would certainly NOT include either man's name.
However 'most aesthetically pleasing' is largely subjective, while 'best workmanship' often ignores the beauty aspect. For instance Alvin Linden's inlettng and fitting was supposedly actually mediocre while the appearance was apparently quite stunning. Frank de Haas was certainly one of the most influential postwar smiths and his designs & executions show excellent mechanical quality but IMO his aesthetics suck.
There are a number of smiths whose work is impeccable but also is largely derivative. Do you value a cookie-cutter copycat who does impeccable knockoffs at a more-admirable level than a truly influential innovator whose execution may have been only average? How about someone whose work is 'far out' (a la Weatherby) but is also impeccable (La Bantchni[sp?])?
One of my personal favorites is Ed Webber. His examples of the Hagn and Sharps 1877 in Steve Hughes' book are, IMO, 2 of the 4 best-looking rifles in the entire book as well as 2 of the best I personally have ever seen in photographs anywhere.
Regards, Joe
