Well Kutter, you hit right on part of the allure of collecting Kentucky rifles, and missed the point all together! 
None of these old guns are perfect. None are the same.
......
No I get the point of the allure thing. It's the same reason people collect 50's and 60's era Winchester engraved firearms,,or look at AH Fox engraving from the post WW1 era and exclaim it's beauty.
But if you ask the same question about those guns,,you'll get my same answer in response to the quality of the engraving.
Cartoon like animals and poor quality cutting covers most of them,,a few exceptions,,, but the price paid for them is not reflected in that. It's that allure thing again.
If you want to look at the engraving and judge the engraving on it's quality of cut, layout, execution, ect, then do that.
The original question was 'which period maker was the best engraver and why?'
I think I answered that w/o any personal likes/dislikes entering the picture.
As I said I'm not familiar with any of these gents,,just judging the work as pictured and from an engravers perspective.
Matters not if they worked 300 yrs ago or today really. The basic tool(s) are the same.
I'm not a historian type,,but I'd guess sunlight and oil lamp light was the same in the New World as it was in the Old World at the time. A bench is a bench, hammer a hammer, etc.
No reason someone that was a good engraver/gun maker in Europe suddenly becomes a poor engraver/gun maker after emmigrating to the Americas. Nor do they necessarily have to do sub-par work just because they are working here or learned the craft here.
Their work simply reflects the level of skill they have achieved.
Engraving is engraving. Quality is quality and that has always been and has never changed.
If it's good quality, I say so and why. If not I say so and why. Some can't except that. Everyone wants a trophy
"None are perfect none are the same"...So where does that fit into the 'Who's the best engraver' question.
Style of scroll is unimportant in judging quality.
'Full coverage English scroll would look out of place',,,that's an opinion of what's correct for the period. Has nothing to do with anything here. I never said any of these guns should display that style.
If the maker decided to cut English Rose & Scroll,,then that is what he decides. If you don't like it on that particular firearm, then that is a call you make based on personal likes and dislikes.
However,if the scroll is well cut, then you can admire the engraver was a skilled one.
As I said, I am not putting anyone down. Everyone has different skill levels. Same then as now.
If the rifle maker was a mostly full time blacksmith, I certainly wouldn't expect to see the engraving finely cut (but you never know!).
But can we be truthfull about it and critique it honestly.
The Winchester Custom Shop in the 50's and 60's had quite a few engravers working in house.
I can't think of one that I'd put in a Master catagory (and I personally dislike the rating system use).
Some were downright crude in their cuttings.
One was a milling machine operator at Win that wanted to be an engraver and the union gave him the job through the bidding process.
But he tried and did his best I'm sure,,his work never attained any great quality. It does have 'allure' though! as it comes from the Custom Shop.
He could have been the blacksmith making a rifle 200 years earlier that also engraved his work.
Tools were the same, Kusmit Brothers and Company at Big Red W had the advantages of E-lectric lights and all,,but Mr Eister layed out & cut a much better scroll than they IMHO.
..and the question was asked..'who was the better period engraver and why'. I could have looked at candle holders engraved by all these guys and the answer would be the same.
Take the 'allure' of the LR out of the picture , the personal likes and dislikes in style and judge the specific skills.
