I agree good riddance. Though there was a 1/2 century of collected lead in the environmnt, after the first ten years of lead dropping out of teh fuel....the lead levels in what you breathe and eat started dropping through the floor. So we have no excuses now to blame our insanity and birth defects on

.
Wildthings...insertless heads were used on a great many engines, most especially straight 6's and a lot of v-8's all the way through teh 50's and 60's. Not all....but a great many. I have seen a great many small block Ford heads without seats. Anticipating the coming no-lead problem...because legiskation had been barking about it for years....they started getting rid of this problem before they needed to in the factories. I have no idea when they started actively going to insert seats in anticipation of unleaded.
But I remember the early 70's well. Unlike now....wherin 85%+ of all cars you can shake a stick at on almost any given city street, are at least made within the last 7-10 years ......it was not uncommon through the 70's to have a huge majority of cars around you that were 15 years or older. There were an awful lot of seatless valve heads around back then.
What one mechanic worked on compared to another, may have insulated one guy from seeing very many......or dumped a lot in some other guys lap. I have met just as many people who had lots of engines that had problems with this....as I have people who didn't.
But...it was a scam on the general public. It may take 30-50K miles for valve recession to kill your engine. If you already had 30-50k on it when they took away your leaded fuel.....who cares? It dies at 100+k and you have inserts put in on a rebuild. No more expensive then than now.
But you are correct about the antique angle...though not all were antiques by any means. The biggest two worries were (1) The farm fleets for harvesting trucks, combines, tractors etc. A great many...still used flat head engines in the 1960's. That...and some of the military and delivery and bus fleets. It was a worry. Thats a lot of engines and cash. (2) Loss of octane. Tetraethyl-lead was added as a lubricant. It had an interesting by-product of also raising the octane . That allowed the formulation used by the refineries to be less than it should have been because the lead did the work for them . It was a cost factor to change.
The short of it...is that the problems associated with removing tetraethyl lead....were real. But....the reamifications to the "general" motoring public (non-ndustrial folk)....were almost nil. A lot of people made a lot of money ripping paranoid car owners off. Ray