You're preaching to the choir. Brooks' saddles are popular and many users praise them, but I can't share their enthusiasm. Comfort-wise I found my std men's B-17 to have been average or below average. My thoughts on Brooks in general and more specifically the B-17 follow:
1. Antiquated design subject to premature catastrophic failure (see OP, or
this recent thread).
As opposed to synthetic saddles wearing at the seams or splitting suddenly?
2. Inordinate care requirements. Always waterproof cover overnight. Apply Proofide ONLY, 1 tsp annually - a substance made primarily from tallow, to ensure the Brooks leather is properly seasoned for the local wildlife's dinner.
Once a year job? Very taxing requirements. Some tourers cover their synthetic saddles, sometimes their entire bike!
3. Uncomfortable, long break-in period required (some users never achieve break-in). Nothing matches the new saddle experience of a rock-hard, slick-as-snot Brooks saddle. Raise the front so you won't slide off at hard stops!
A feature common to all saddles for some users (the part about being uncomfortable.).
4. 2-4 times heavier than most conventional saddles (500-850g vs 200-300g).
Hardly an issue for a heavy touring bike.
5. Rear width interferes with leg movement and fore-aft shifting, wider than necessary for sit-bone support. B17s are intended for very upright bicycling posture.
That's the way I ride on my touring bike to keep the weight off my arms.
6. If everything goes right, they still are shorter-lived than conventional saddles due to inexorible sag. The tensioned leather design sags more than conventional saddles with frames and padding for support.
I have worn through several synthetic saddles over 10 years but only one Brooks over the last several years (in fact it is not yet worn out).
7. As saddles go, Brooks is not inexpensive, especially when you get away from the B-17 variants.