Of course not. As Heraclitus, that great Zen philospher said, "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." Erinmore today is not the same as Erinmore of yore. Nor too Escudo, Bengal Slices, Nightcap, Three Nuns, etc., ad infinitum They're facsimiles, simulacrums, imitations, what have you. But just because they're not exactly the same doesn't mean they're meaningless. New can actually be better than old. It happens all the time. Thanks to the Japanese and the Germans, cars no longer have to be tinkered every day to keep running. The internet is full of rubbish, but you can find out things almost instantaneously today that even just 25 years ago would have taken you weeks or months in the library. We live longer than our ancestors thanks to modern medicine. There is no reason why new blends can't be better than old. I actually prefer the STG Durbar over the Murray's. The McNiels seem to think what they did cannot be reproduced or improved upon, so they won't pass their knowledge to someone else to give them the opportunity. I think they are at best, simply mistaken, and at worst, arrogant. So be it. The best is yet to come.
I certainly hope that you're correct about the best being yet to come. I'm tasting the opposite, as a variety of blends are getting cut with cheaper components to increase profits.
And I don't agree with your assessment regarding the McNeils and I get the impression that it's based on a lack of knowledge.
First off, McClelland was their creation. The various blends were largely the work of Mary McNeil and the processing largely the literally backbreaking work of Mike McNeil. It was their company, not yours, nor mine, nor anyone else's. And their decision regarding what to do with it is theirs and theirs alone. They don't owe you, or me, or anyone, diddlysquat.
Not everything is objectively quantifiable, or at least easily so. You can't take Mike's instinct for picking tobaccos to use and how to process them and turn all of it into a formula. There is an artistry to it, just as there's an artistry to Hans' HU blends, or Per with Macbaren, or Greg Pease with his blends, and it's not something that can be copied like a toilet seat. And it's not something that can be taught.
In my own arcane way I have analogous experience. I was, for about 20 years, a matte painter for live action films. When I started in the late '70's there were maybe 25-30 people worldwide who were considered capable of successfully and consistently carrying out this work. The skill of creating a painting that could be taken through any of a number of different photo/chemical processes to end up looking like photographic reality when projected onto a 30 to 50 foot screen cannot be taught. I tried, many times for over a decade of teaching.
One had to have the innate instinct, talent, call it what you will, some wiring in one's brain that enabled one to foresee how the image would develop through the process, an instinct that few people have. If you had the instinct it could be honed. Without that peculiar instinct, forget it. But even with this tiny target to hit, artists contributed something uniquely individual to those photographically "real" images. It's a personality that can be a little lacking with today's amazing digital imaging technology.
So nobody is going to reproduce McClelland blends because the instinct will be different, even if the same components are available (which they are not). If someone comes along with something "better" then give it a new and unique name, rather than use someone else's.