There was good stuff back then, and bad stuff. The bad stuff wound up in dumpsters.
You don't hear anyone singing the praises of Estey amps, for instance, and stuff like the Baldwins now has weirdo funky chic appeal but is not something most players would choose to gig with (yes, I know about the one Neil Young used to use as a stage monitor).
Acoustic got it right, and so did Sunn. I never mind seeing those come into my repair shop because I know they're serviceable and sound good when I'm done fixing them.
I think one of the big hits on the reputation of SS was when the undisputed industry leader in musical instrument amplification, Fender, issued two botched lines of SS amps. First were the amps that carried the same names as some of the tube line, then the Zodiacs.
One Fender fell on its face, SS would have a hard time gaining acceptance.
Another problem is that (partially as a result of the aforementioned Fender stumble), SS became the territory of low-end amps. Since SS is cheaper to build, it can go into cheaper amps where people are really strapped for money.
So most of our first exposures to SS amps were the best Peavey practice amps we could afford. We weren't exposed to higher-end stuff because when people get some money, they usually head straight to the tube amps.
Anyway, I like the aforementioned early Acoustics and Sunns, as well as some of the Peavey pro stuff like the 400 series (the amps to have for Nashville steelers).
Marshall Valvestates have awful build quality but put out a pretty good distortion tone for going "chunkita-chunkita-chunkita." Fender's version also surprised me with its tone quality.
One personal Hell for me would be to have no amplification to use but a Roland JC-120. I've worked on a few of them and detest the tone. The construction is pretty bad, too, with controls mounted on phenolic PCB's, etc.
My only experience with modeling technology was a Fender Cyber-Twin that someone brought me to fix, and it reminded me of a particularly ugly transvestite.