Well, I'm a master printer but, and it is a big BUT, only of my own work.
I hear the appelation "master printer" and wonder what it really means. Within the physical limitations of gelatin-silver light sensitive materials I can readily produce any result that is technically feasible. Lots people on APUG can do that.
Maybe the "master" status has to do with making conspicuously appropriate judgements about tones, densities, contrasts. That's what I do all the time. The photograph is not finished until it is exactly what I want and time, effort, and expense don't count. So I'm a member of the master printers club; membership...one.
Maybe being a master involves making photographs for other people such as they would make for themselves if they could. I've worked with a lot of camera-workers who expose film but take no further part in the photograph making process apart from paying for it. My experience in asking them "How would you like these pictures to look?" is a waste of time. Usual replies are "Make 'em look great. " or "Really bad light. Musta shot 'em at three or four thou'. See if ya can get somethin'."
In the end, sliding a half decent 16x20 under the eyes of a camera-johnnie gets responses like "Wow! I knew I was good but I never realised I was this good." I try not to be cynical.
Rant aside, I would like to add my voice in acknowledging Gordon Undy of Point Light Gallery as a master. He is a bastion of fine photographic values in Australia. We have worked in each others darkrooms and agree on most things except pyro negatives. Gordon reckons they are good for projection and contact and I say contact is best. Maybe it is one kind of valid preference arguing against another.