Given the fact that the H&H has been owned since 1996 by Chanel, as in Chanel No. 5 perfume, I am not surprised at the business "model" you described. By Chanel's own statements regarding the purchase, they invested heavily in upgrading the machinery in the London factory. Accepting your man hour numbers, H&H would have to be paying their workers $100 USD to justify current prices (i.e. 2000 x 100 = 200,00), which I somehow doubt. I have no argument with the quality of H&H and other fine English gunmakers. I currently own a Joseph Lang 12 bore and a Westley Richard 470 double, although both are pre WWI guns. I have also owned two Jeffery double rifles again both pre-war. I just find the current prices over the top. People will pay wildly inflated prices for the name - think Louis Vuitton or Prada. I can't imagine Chanel buying H&H for any other reason than the name. Coincidentally, Purdey has been owned by Compagnie Financière Richemont SA, also known as Richemont, a Swiss luxury product company since 1970. By comparison, I owned for many years a live bird gun built to order by AYA in the 1950s for a wealthy Chicago department store magnate. It was the Model 37, a deluxe, full hand detachable sidelock O/U. The inside of the locks reminded one of a fine Swiss watch and were gold washed. The wood to metal fit and engraving were above reproach. At last check, AYA still produced the Model 37 at a cost of around 20K USD. Go figure.