Funny how the best London and Birmingham makers never 'erred on the side of caution' a century ago. They made them 'correct', first time. Stuffed if I could live with ill-fitted wood at that price, just in case of a possible future accident (Huh?).

...though I notice from full-page ads in DGJ, SS, etc that poor wood-to-metal fit is becoming common-place even on high-priced British guns (though 'British' is only a half-truth when describing today's hybrid Italian/Spanish/English commercial products).

No offence, new guy, but if finishing 'proud' can be done with the stock in place (as illustrated in your post), whereas perfect wood-to-metal fit requires repeated removal and refitting of the stock, and properly-cured wood in the first place!, then cost (as per the stocker's time-sheet and climate-control in the curing room) is probably the driving factor.

BTW, stock refinishing in the traditional sense did not require the removal of any wood, just the old finish. Sure, it took time and infinite care, which is admittedly hard to find at any price today.

IMHO proud stock-wood is purely an economic decision, and shouldn't be tolerated on a high-grade gun.