I see hyped highs in microphones as a design choice (which I don't care for) rather than a manufacturing/price point/origin attribute.
HF resonance in condenser mics is just a fact of life. Dealing with it is a design choice governed by different aspects, including both cost issues and attractivity. Objectively, on an LDC, the best way is to let the diaphragm resonate with a constrained Q and deal with it electronically; unfortunately, it is almost never done properly (not even in the U87) - probably because it would involve a dose of final tuning that is not compatible with modern production techniques and maintenance issues.
In a side by side test many people will pick the brighter mic.
A very important factor that no manufacturer can ignore.
I want the highs to be natural and sweet sounding and I usually don't need a lot of information up there.
Natural and sweet for you may be someone elses's dark and muddy, just as bright and lively for the common people is your shrill and acid. That's the essence of subjectivity.
The c414 TLII and the U87 are too bright for my tastes (never mind the MXL).
You're putting three different animals in the same bag. One is a mic that has its capsule deliberately tuned with mild HF resonance, the other has a slightly resonant diaphragm with not-so-adequate electronic compensation, and the last one has a pronounced resonance with no hint of trying to compensate it.
Within certain limits, we have to deal with HF resonance; the proper tool for it is EQ.
I have no qualms about using EQ to fine-tune the sound of a microphone that has otherwise desirable qualities; this comes after proper positioning, room acoustics, preformance...