A very interesting thread.
A couple of observations I would make:
I have recently collected a 1890's Dickson RA from my most trusted stocker and he has done a wonderful job. However, he did declare it a real pain in the a*** to do and he observed that he really can't see the point in the layout of the design which requires very substantial amounts of wood to be removed from the head of the stock. He didn't describe it as weakened just incredibly fiddly, time consuming and hence expensive.
Talking a few days later to someone who specialises in restocking RA's (and whose charges are about 33% more!), he agreed that they are challenging to do but once one becomes experienced with them they are no more troublesome than many more 'mainstream' stock types if you are not familiar with their foibles.
Shotgunlover, no Dickson I have worked on has had intercepting sears, just a normal block on the trigger blades. Maybe they were introduced on post-1900 models but not in my experience on pre 1890s'.
Redgrouse, the weight benefit of not having the ejector mechanism in the forend moves about 1oz of metal from 1 1/2" in front of the hinge pin which I really don't think is going to alter the balance of a well built gun in any useful way. Plus, the entire gun has to be stripped to get access to the working components of the ejectors. As someone who has spent hours regulating this system, I would vote for a Southgate or Deeley box every day of the week.
RA's can undoubtedly be very pretty guns but then so can boxlocks and sidelocks.
Their main attraction to me lies in their relative rarity not superior design nor aesthetics. Beauty in the eye of the beholder etc IMHO
