Probably no surprise to anyone: I don't buy the concept of a "holy grail" microphone. The range and variety of recording situations that we encounter is so great that one type of microphone can't be the ideal choice for all of them. It's not so much a matter of "is the microphone great or not" but "does it have the characteristics that are most needed?"
I follow another recording forum where the people are into "vintage" AKG and Neumann microphones. One time a guy there was rhapsodizing about the original (tube) U 47, and asked the group--somewhat rhetorically, but in all seriousness--whether anyone could possibly not want that microphone if they could get one. I put my hand up, since its characteristics are truly worse than useless for the kinds of live, stereo recording that I mostly do. (The screechiest, fingernails-on-the-chalkboard-est, steel-violin-string-sounding-est orchestral recordings that I know of are the Mercury "Living Presence" LPs/CDs that were made with U 47s as the main microphones.)
It's not the microphone itself; it's the relationship between the microphone and the situation/application, plus the sonic concept of the engineer or producer.
If we always recorded the same kind of material in the same type of surroundings, the "holy grail" idea might have more of a practical basis. Like, if all you do is dialogue and effects for film, you might use just two or three different mikes (a lavalier, a shotgun and an MK 41). But even studio music recording goes by application categories (e.g. solo vocals; guitar or bass cabinets; drum overheads; room mikes)--and live remote recording is generally more "adaptive" than most studio work.
--best regards