Well Erick your question about how it would have been received at Dixon's or here would have been negative. That is unless the builder was doing a bench copy of said rifle. If he wasn't I am sure there would have been plenty of critical commentary.
...
I'd guess alacran's observation about "unless the builder was doing a bench copy" is probably right.
How judges might respond to such a build might also depend on who the builder was and what he/she was trying to represent. If you, Eric, built this gun, I think people who admire your work would understand your approach, just as we understand Rich's. But if a newby built it, there's a chance that critics might eat him/her alive.
I'm speaking only about my own preferences here, but I'll say that these little details and irregularities are what give a piece personality. A modern piece that is "perfect" and "improved" in every detail will certainly demonstrate a type of skill, but, for me, the visual effect is sterile. I prefer to see personality. And IMHO, comprehension and mastery of those small details, so that they can be reproduced intentionally, shows an even higher level of skill. But as your question may imply, the critics and judges don't necessarily share that opinion or appreciate that approach.
