Okay, I've read all the opinions here and I can relate to all of them. From a looks standpoint, a beautifully polished blue is hard to beat. But with even moderate holster wear, the blue begins to show wear. That's why I'd leave a Python in the safe and only take it to the range. To some, wear translates to "character," but if you want to sell it, a stainless gun will fetch considerably more than a blued gun with holster wear.
The S&W 686 looks great, polished. But it required considerable elbow grease.
Minor dings can be buffed out and holster wear isn't a problem.
Since I can't afford a nice, blued Python, I found
a gorgeous knife at a fraction of the price that has some kind of a teflon finish that I came across on YouTube. I got one and tossed it into my bugout bag, but every now and again I take it out and look at it. And I wonder why, if they can make a stainless steel knife look so incredible, they can't do the same with a stainless gun. Anyway, the knife's blade has a deep black shiny finish, and that's all I need. On my guns, I'll take stainless.
The Speed-Six pictured here used to be a .38Spc; now it's a .357.
Taurus handguns have nice finishes and look great; however, their tolerances aren't always up to snuff. (I had one M66 that I dropped JHP bullets into the chambers. In every chamber, the bullet fell through right onto the table. In my Ruger Speed-Six, which had been rechambered from .38 to .357 by a top-notch gunsmith, the bullets caught in every chamber and the gun is one of the most accurate guns I've every shot.) So looks don't necessarily mean anything. My Rugers are all pretty accurate, but they have an appetite for heavier bullets, whereas my 686 does well with the lighter bullets. Ruger's approach seems logical based on the fact that lighter bullets are generally used in close-in defensive encounters whereas heavier bullets are more often used in longer range situations like hunting.