Define "Good"

A problem we have today is a most 1911's have about as much in common with an M1911A1 as a Remington 700 does with a K98k.
A problem we don't have is people taking classes on Remington 700's and making direct comparisons with a 98k without actually knowing how far the 700 has diverged from the German.

Is an M1911A1 is a dog, decent or good?
Most people who've become captivated by $3,000 custom-shop guns have already consigned it to the dog category with their other descriptions of what constitutes a decent gun.

1911's are so far gone from what was issued they're hardly worthy of being called by the same name as JMB's design.

Remember an M1911A1 has no-fitting 100% parts interchange with ANY other M1911A1 regardless of which contractor made the parts.  In 1943, with a war on, an entire years production from Remington-Rand was rejected because, while the guns worked just fine, you couldn't use their parts in a Colt and vice-versa.

Show me a two $3,000 1911s from two different vendors that can do that.  Now, if you found two, can either company make 800 a day?

Will a $3,000 gun be more accurate than an issue M1911A1?  Almost certainly.  More reliable?  Maybe.  More durable?  Unlikely.

It's frustrating because a great many of us don't want an heirloom expensive gun.  We just want the same gun as was issued in 1944.  Or 1987.

The problem is that nobody makes that gun.  Or a gun that will interchange parts with it.

No, it's not going to be as cheap as a Glock.  I get that.