I don't currently have a steel string acoustic.
When I had one, the best I had was a lawsuit Takamine.
Like people have mentioned about Martins, it took some
playing before it started to open up.
One day I played way too long for what I was used to (weekend warrior)
and injured the index finger. Now I max out at about a half hour
on a steel string acoustic... and so it's not worth having one.
I try them now and again in shops.
I make do for my own playing with a nylon string...
but I'm very sensitive to acoustic guitar tone,
especially as a member of the audience, or hearing others
play them in shops.

I can totally agree with the comments about the differences
in sound- to me, Taylors have a clarity and a bell like quality,
but lack warmth.
Martins sound much warmer and richer to me, but almost
too warm and rich- they lack clarity.
They also tire my bad finger out the quickest.
The acoustic whose tone I have enjoyed the most listening to
was actually a fairly old (20 year old?) Alvarez Yairi.
The sound was rich, and yet every note was clear and distinct.
However, I understand how some people preferring the sound
of Martins, Gibsons or Taylors is a matter of taste.
They are definitely not the same. And it's also a matter
of function- what genre, solo or ensemble, etc.

I also play electric guitar, since it is easier on my injured
finger. I tend to like Stratocasters, and there I am well
aware of this "iconic" aspect, which is a factor with Fender's
electrics, just as it is with Martin acoustics, and virtually
all Gibsons. Some have mentioned this. There is just something
about a Martin or Gibson acoustic (if of the classic designs)
that just "looks right" for certain genres of music. (those
that have a history stretching back to the 20's,30's,40's,and 50's)
This iconic quality is a big factor, especially in the resale market.
Many good guitars that don't have that iconic quality
lose a lot of value if you bought them new and try to resell them.
Some of that resale value is partly because you have ignorant
people who wouldn't know a good guitar from a bad one buying
Martins, Gibsons, and Fender electrics, just because their dad
or granddad had one. But if resale value is a factor,
then it might be worth it to look for a good Martin or Gibson.
I would say a new guitar's price is more reflective of the cost of the
labor and materials it took to build it,
where a used guitars price is based on its reputation...
and some of that is perhaps deserved, and some
has this irrational iconic quality.

Martin is the only American company whose quality stank in the '70s.
So did Fender and Harley-Davidson- the companies barely survived because of their trashed reputations. And all the American carmakers
were making absolute junk in the '70s... what was it about those times? Surprisingly, Fender's and Harleys are still American icons.

Anyway, this thread was an interesting read- lots of good points
mixed in with irrational iconic statements that remind me
of Ford-Chevy debates when I was a kid.