For the sake of argument, I concede that the 1911 design generally lends itself to a beautiful pistol. That being said, I'm simply not a fan. Other than having an external hammer, what makes it better or worse than any other semiautomatic pistol?
It is better only in the eyes of those who love it.
Many of the things that make it "better" for one thing, make it worse for something else. And some of the things that made it a standout world beater back in the day, simply aren't all that wonderful anymore, as newer designs use newer better ideas to make an even "better" gun.
Multiple safeties, cocked and locked carry. Good for some, bad for others.
Thin shape, easy to conceal and grip. Or thin shape, low capacity, hard to grip.
Usually, all steel guns, they last forever. Or, all steel gun that is heavy and can rust.
Great ergonomics, easy to point and aim. Or, not so great ergo's, I prefer my (insert Glock or Luger or other different shaped gun here).
Served for 100 years in the greatest Army on earth. Or, no one bothered to upgrade the long obsolete 1911, because the US is a rifle based Army, and pistols aren't a priority.
Has a hammer! Or, has a hammer that can snag, jam, and bite you.
Uncomplicated single action that can be honed to a great trigger feel. Or, lacks a double action, requires you to manually cock the hammer for a second strike.
Cocked and locked! Lacks a decocker.
Shoots the mighty .45 ACP. Lacks capacity.
As you can see, every single "good" thing is also a bad thing to someone else.
In the end, it is totally up to you and your preferences, uses, and desires.
But to me...they are a beautiful gun.