Several things come to mind reading the thread up until now.
One is to be sure that a viewing of Adams's prints really include his prints. The Mural Project images, for example, are owned by the government and have been obtained by many through the Freedom of Information Act. The "negatives" they have are copy negatives that Adams provided to protect his originals, and in some cases are copies of those copy negatives made in response to FOIA requests. The prints made from them generally look like soot and chalk to me. These images are not copyrighted by the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust, and therefore have been reproduced in a variety of ways, many of which appear to me ghastly. The stuff printed under the auspices of the Trust maintain much higher standards of reproduction.
Adams's later prints were larger and stronger in their tonalities than his earlier prints, so you should be aware of when the prints were made in addition to when the exposures were made. Not all gallery showings provide that information.
Bob Ross makes prints from a collection of Adams's negatives under the auspices of the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite, which is owned by the family. These "special edition" prints are so marked, and they are actually beautifully made. They are also affordable enough so that even I own a couple. But they are not Adams's signature prints, and they are not large.
I compared my Special Edition print of Dogwoods with the reproduction in Yosemite and the Range of Light (I have the modern trade paper version in addition to an autographed first edition), and was surprised to discover that the reproduction was sharper. With a loupe, the reason was apparent: The screening process used to make the reproduction created false edges around highlights in rather than the smooth edges of the original. That print was not much larger than the negative. I wonder how much our impression of the sharpness of Adams's images is influenced by seeing them mostly in reproduction. The tonality of that print, however, is amazing compared to small-format stuff.
I viewed the Smithsonian exhibition of Adams's work in 1985, which was a combination of two traveling shows, including very large prints made late in his life, immediately following his death. That exhibition also included works by Stieglitz, Strand, and Weston. The prints profoundly affected me. But the earliest prints did show signs of age--one even had fixer stains. His archival technique improved over time. I also viewed an exhibition of his work at the McNay Art Museum in San Antonio, Texas in maybe 1990. Those prints were smaller and more intimately displayed, and it moved me even more.
We should remember that he was using films like Super XX, which had a very thick base and emulsion and large grain. Only the format size made up for the deficiencies of the film. His one famous 35mm picture, the grab shot of Georgia O'Keeffe, cannot be printed larger than 8x10 without losing its quality.
We should also remember that Adams established a new aesthetic principle, in conjunction with other photographers such as Imogen Cunningham, Edward Weston, and so on. At the time, photographers were using photography to simulate painting, or so it seemed to Adams, and he thought photography should reflect its medium honestly, with sharp images and clean tonalities. This was revolutionary in his day. Those early photos, however, did not as often have the grand scale of his later works, so his rise in popularity cannot be wholly laid at the door of "wilderness appeal". That pictorial approach that he opposed at the time is popular again, and that changes our perspective.
Many younger photographers have picked up where Adams left off, just as Adams picked up where earlier generations (such as Sullivan and Strand) left off, in terms of technique. John Sexton, for example, made prints whose tonalities exceeded Adams's own works, taking the more modern equipment and materials to their limit, but basing it on the principles Adams first codified.
But Adams was singularly successful in understanding the emotion of the natural scene. His description of Yosemite Valley was "earth gesture", which is a particularly artistic way of describing it, at least for those of us who studied art and did gesture drawings. His objective was not mere documentation, but he didn't discount the fact that in his day few had seen what he had seen in the wilderness. His art was motivated by his love of the subject, and we are jaded about such motivations these days, it seems to me. For those of us who have ventured to photograph wilderness as he did, finding that singular vision has not proved to be so easy. That is not about technique but about art. But that doesn't mean every one of his photographs attained to the same high standard.
As to Adams hiring a publicist, he didn't. He had assistants, and he had benefactors. Some of his benefactors were well-placed in the art world, and that did Adams no harm. But he wasn't the only artist trying to court those benefactors. He succeeded because many in the art world were moved by his work in ways they were not by others. That process is just as relevant today as ever. But remember also that Adams didn't benefit from the explosion in prices in his prints that happened starting in the 60's and 70's. He did commercial work right up until that time.
Rick "noting that photography was not considered art and was never displayed in or collected by art museums when Adams founded Group f/64" Denney
And what if I wanted to buy a hat. I'd look at the pic and say. "Hey, my head is not that flat, they must not have a hat for me." 
