This talk of "sticking to the original" seems misguided if the project is to happen at all. If using different steel is ok, and using different construction techniques to arrive at the finished product is ok, then why not other changes? Would you give it 2 1/2" chambers becasue Uncle Dan did?? It is an arbitrary line at best over exactly what would be "stuck to" and what would not be, and seems like a slippery slope best not stayed on top of.
Seems to me that it is not a Lefever being debated, and never will be--it is a modern gun based on the design of a lefever. To stick only to the original would be unnecessarily limiting and would make it less of a gun at the end of the day--why try to make it something it's not?? If you want a Lefever, shoot one--no one will force you to buy one of these. If you want a modern gun with the best qualities of a Lefever, you may have to make your own and stray from the original in the process.
Personally, a gun like this would be a financial stretch for me, but it's something that sounds very attractive and the facts that I might actually be able to afford it by spreading the cost over a longer period of time, and that I'll actually have a hand in having it built make it all the more alluring to me. However, if the NEW gun is to be built to a standard that doesn't allow the use of modern no-tox ammo, doesn't take advantage of the best technology available, etc then it makes it less attractive to me--I aim to use my guns. If I want to get it parkerized, put laminated stocks on it, and have Ken Hurst engrave it in a mossy oak shadowgrass camo pattern so I can hunt ducks with it "in style"--what difference would it make? It doesn't diminish the legacy of the original in the least, on the contrary i would find it a testament to the vision of its creator that people would find this 100 year old design not only applicable but preferable to its modern counterparts.