I wasn't going to enter into this debate (which will never be resolved....), but Keith's comment mirrors mine. I've got an MVT Ketland pistol, as well, and like it.
When I first got it, I was a bit disappointed, but then I saw the potential---as has been noted, it's best to look at these things as assembled kits. I slimmed and refinished the stock, took the mirror brightness off the steel, and took some of the tension out of out of the sear spring to lighten the trigger pull. Although it's no dueling pistol, it's not meant to be---instead it's a reasonably good rendition of an early 1800s trade pistol. It's actually almost a dead ringer for an original Belgian-made copy of a British Ketland.
Which brings up another point---how accurate, historically, are some of the guns we carry today? For instance, I've yet to see a modern-made (production or custom) trade gun, French or English, without any tumbler bridle whatsoever. Yet most (virtually all) tradeguns up to 1815 or so were made this way. Today we have trade guns with sporting-rifle quality locks. Is this historically correct? Remember that the reason for the enlargement of the NorthWest gun trigger guard was to allow a two-fingered trigger pull. How many of us today would put up with that? I won't even get into what I think of the touch hole liner in guns supposed to be representations of lower priced originals. In short, how much are we kidding ourselves that the guns we use are totally accurate representations of originals? In it's own way, my lowly MVT brass barreled Ketland pistol may be more PC/HC than many of my other guns.
Just food for thought...
Rod