I have bunches of Marlin rifles, the current production "Remlins" might not match the "high times" from Marlin, but they're not as bad as some of the bad times in Marlin history either. The worst seems to be over. Buying a JM stamped Marlin doesn't ensure that it's any better than anything made today. One of my JM stamped 1894's has a gap in the bolt fit and poorly color-matched stock and forend - the current Remlin my buddy just brought home is as classy as any of the other 1894's I have, and WITHOUT the problems that my particular "glory days" Marlin has. My wife got another Remlin 1895 SBL, which is her second, and our 5th 1895, with the rest being JM stamped - to my eye and hands, I can't find anything significantly different other than a few stray machining curf marks on the inside of the receiver on non-contact surfaces - won't affect anything, ever.
Guys that have sworn off the Remlins forever based on quality are missing out on great rifles. Now, if you're against the politics of the Cerberus Group, and THAT is why you're anti-Marlin, then fine.
The Henry is a fine rifle - it's essentially a copy of the Marlin design. I do, however, HATE HATE HATE that it's a tube loader. What a way to miss the mark... I hated Marlin's decision to make the 1894 32H&R into a tube loader, and I despise Henry's decision to violate the 336/1895 action with a d@mn tube load...
I bought one of the brass framed Henry's. Love the look and feel, but I'm not sure that I'm confident in running a lot of heat through that brass...