"there can be debate on triggerplate actions and the "best" designation"
debate on what grounds? The sear-tumbler geometry is superior to sidelocks, the action bar is more solid therefore stronger. The stock to action joint is stronger in round actions. Since the advent of the Round Action the debate should go the other way, whether sidelocks by any maker can still lay claim to the title.
In the words of Gough Thomas: "for sheer thoroughbred lines the Dickson Round Action yields nothing whatsoever to the finest sidelock ever built."
I might be wrong, but I frequently perceive an American reverence to anything bearing the dubious title of "London best" and inevitably the sidelock action because is what the London makers made. Had the Round Action been able to show a London address no doubt it would also be equally revered. It is useful to remember that vital bits, like locks were made by Stanton and Brazier far from London, while prestigious guns like the Lancaster 12/20 and the Holland Dominion were made entirely in Birmingham.
As for pricing and profit. The standard of living attained by James Purdey the Younger, detailed in Richard Beaumont's book, stands as evidence that a fair amount of money could be made in this trade.
The value of a prestigious gunmaking firm to a big conglomerate is in its client book, not its turnover. Just think how valuable is a real time updated list of people who have repeatedly spent the price of a house on a gun!
And to remind us all yet again, a Ferrari with a bluprinted V12 engine, ie lots of handwork, sells for 150$ per kilogram, while a best gun goes for 30 000. Some people obviously know how to exploit our passions!
