The Sig Man,
I have another problem which is different from yours. Why is everyone so preoccupied with looks in a gun? Yes, I like pretty and eye-appealing guns, but it is a side benefit, not crucial to the use/operation of the arm.
Glocks are what we old time Texans used to refer to as "plug ugly." That fact affects the operation function not one whit, it may even contribute to the good functioning, due to the design, i.e., "form follows function." I have a good shooting friend who actually won't shoot my Glock or the one of our mutual shooting pard. That is simply on the basis of how ugly it appears to him. Does he acutally think the "ugly" will rub off on his hands?! (He isn't going to win any "Sexiest man alive" cover endorsements himself, and neither will I or our other friend.)
Frankly, I wish the Glock were more attractive, but much more than that, I think the shape and width make it hard to conceal well in my mode of carry. I ask you, which is more important?
My personal philosophy is that a good gun becomes automatically (pun intended) better looking immediately upon proving itself. If I have to own a house, vehicle, gun, or whatever, which fits certain aesthetic standards just because I think it reflects positively upon me, then I need to get my priorites straight. The gun is not a part of me. It is a tool, a machine, an inanimate object, not one of my children, nor an extension of my personality. I have a great fondness for firearms (some say "unreasonable"), but they are "things," and deserve to be regarded as such.