There's no simple answer to this one. Take the Les Paul, in the 50s it was not as futuristic as the strat and the humbuckers didn't jump out and take the world by storm. It was only in the 70s that the new breed of hi-gain amps let loose the sustain lurking in those goldtops. 70s players weren't trying to ape 50s idols, John Lennon even had his LP stripped back to brown wood. Also with Les Paul's you need to differentiate between the Standard's with P-90s (a single coil type) and Customs with humbuckers, at least that's the general rule.
The telecaster is another guitar that did OK in the 50s but name a famous tele player? Telecasters lacked outright glamour which is why punk players like Chrissie Hynde and Joe Strummer found them great work tools.
Makers like Gretsch and Rickenbacker suffer from high price tags and limited quantities. Sure they have a following (the Beatles, the Jam) but it's the sheer ubiquity of Fenders that make them so well known.
Hallmark is an odd word RH, Fender were quality in the 50s/60s but fell markedly in the 70s. Even today when it comes to value for money non-big-name makers will give you more. I'm currently very impressed with Blade (Levinson). It's all a matter of if you want that Fender headstock. The net abounds with fake logo transfers for people who want the branding, even when they don't own the real thing.
Personally I try to ignore brands and logos. This is a tricky act to pull-off, we all have a lifetime of product images. But I find putting hands on real guitars speaks volumes. Since my fingers don't touch the headstock and my ears can't hear branding...