The problem I have with using price as a determinate is some of the top names probably have a much higher gross profit margin than lesser known makers for equal quality. And they are able to demand the price partially based on their historic reputation. Nothing wrong with it but it should disqualify cost as a basis for judging a best.
When you consider that H&H and Purdey are owned by large conglomerates, you have to wonder how that affects internal cost/pricing decisions. Not that ye olde gunmakers weren't motivated by profit either, but the corporate approach to making a profit tends to focus on cost-control - and is often short-sighted and internal (not customer) focused.
It would be a fascinating exercise to have a top-notch gunsmith compare current "best guns" from corporate owned makers vs. some smaller, independent makers like AA Brown, DMB and the like - a real fine toothed comb review that looked at the arcane details of gunmaking that might reveal the difference between a "best gun made without consideration to cost [and profit]" vs. a "very high quality gun that can be sold for a respectable profit." And to make it even more interesting, include some of those ne plus ultra guns from some Italian makers like Rizzini and Fabbri into the mix.
