This was ultimately changed back in 5th edition, as was almost every other damn thing that 4e did, but it's left me wondering: what do people think of the two? Do people prefer one pair to the other? Or can you actually enjoy both of them equally? Would you rather have Bronze and Brass, or Iron and Adamantine?
Speaking personally... I'd rather have Iron and Adamantine, hand's down. The Bronze and the Brass have never made a lot of sense to me, nor have they ever interested me - they're freaking copper alloys, and it shows; visually and mechanically, they're more tweaks of the Copper Dragon than anything really unique. One was, I think, a really mercenary dragon eager to amass treasure, whilst the other was a petty warlord who claimed a just cause - I can't really remember them, so maybe that's only their 4e versions.
Iron and Adamantine, on the other hand... for starters, they just sound a better fit; I mean, which feels more organic to you? Adamantine/Gold/Silver/Copper/Iron? Or Gold/Silver/Copper/Bronze/Brass? The Iron Dragon filled a very unique role by being the Metallic's "savage", the embarrassing low-tier brute that the others try to pretend doesn't exist, ala the Chromatics with the White Dragon. The Adamantine Dragon, meanwhile, gives us a truly fantasy metal to base a dragon on, and is unique with its thunder blast breath weapon and its ultra-durable hide.
Anyway, that's my opinion. What's yours?