Setting aside offence, there's the question of whether what you say is true.
The US publishes the NTSB database of aircraft accidents which is freely searchable. I had the bright idea that I could look through lists of accidents affecting wooden homebuilts and see whether structural failure was more common in older aircraft. I failed, as it doesn't seem to be common enough to draw conclusions from.
The Luton Minor must clearly be a very safe aircraft as there have been no accidents involving them in the US, ever. So I chose to look at accidents involving the Volksplane which is a popular wooden homebuilt in the US and which like the Luton has been knocking around for a few years.
Of 41 accidents, only one involved a glued joint coming loose in a rudder attachment. One involved a crankshaft bearing. There were I think three which were put down to engine failure of unknown cause - one tends to suspect icing. One was due to propeller failure. One to dodgy Magneto timing. One to debris in the carburettor. A few to fuel system misassembly and one to leaving the choke open and flooding the engine. One involved a throttle cable detachment. Two involved unfitted pulley guards. But most were put down to good old pilot error and inexperience. I haven't counted gear failure due to heavy landings as structural failure.
The other thing that stood out was that there were 5 fatalities, which compares favourably with many more modern hot-ships and even the Cessna 172 (38 accidents involved fatalities out of the first 200 on the page). On an hourly basis, who knows..?
All very crude and unworthy of publication in a scholarly journal, but I find no obvious evidence that these aircraft are falling out of the skies in significant numbers. Some of the accidents were due to poor maintenance or design and might not have happened to a certified aircraft, but for the most part they were unrelated to the aircraft's age - except insofar as you might argue that an older aircraft would be less likely to have a missing pulley guard as it would already have crashed.
Generally speaking, an aircraft with a slower stall speed is a safer aircraft as it lets you crash more slowly. As such it seems to me that an old and slow wooden homebuilt should be acceptably safe. Anyway Button Push Noted, you might have lots of qualifications but I think the ball's in your court to provide some evidence.
However, here, I am looking for an open-cockpit, tailwheel, single (or double) seater to have a bit of fun in without a proper "mission profile" as I have access to other machines for such purposes.
Will I fly all over the UK and (most of) Europe in one of these "old vintage" as you put it? Most certainly! But this isn't about "the mission", it isn't about the cost, it is about the fun, the small strips flying, the meeting of farmers and other aviators on their strips, the air in your hair, this complete freedom of where and when to go and simply put - just an incredible adventure ahead of anything else.
Well, you sound like the perfect owner for such an aircraft so I hope you manage to find somewhere to hangar her.
I'm not a member of the Tiger club, but I did my tailwheel training with Glyn and hope to make it to one of the barbecues. So hopefully see you there one day.