Every single maker was capable of producing a "best" gun in the strictest sense of the word. If money was no object the system of outworkers in England made it very easy. I think the best measure of a maker is the quality of work turned out at a price point, especially on the lower end. Here you will discover the real philosophy of the maker. What corners were they willing to cut, where did they draw the line, and so forth. For instance, I am always amazed at prewar guns made by Scott (or Webley & Scott). Most of their models were offered in at least three grades but the main differences were in the amount of engraving and figure in the wood. Underneath, the finish and fitting in the lowest grade is equal to that of the top grade. And I'm yet to find wood on the lowest grade that wasn't carefully laid out and executed. By the same measure though I often see other English examples put up in the crudest fashion, one I happen to own wasn't even case hardened! And I'm sure that very same maker could offer a best when tempted.
Moral to this treatise: just as a car shouldn't be judged by its paint job without looking under the hood, judge a gun by what's really important and not the superficial.
