That is a good point, Brian. The shenanigans I have gone to dovetailing the angled sides for the apothecary chest were made practical or easier because I have multiple references surfaces after thicknessing on a machine. These reference surfaces are available as a result of the machining process. In the days before machines, it was necessary to find alternative methods, or not just attempt such angled work. If anything, the machined surfaces (from a planer/thicknesser), as much as modern materials, make it possible to do more advanced designs. While it is possible that others way have used similar techniques, I very much doubt that this piece would have appeal for a professional, either today or in the 18th century - it would require too much time and not be economical to build this way. I do it because I can and because I am an amateur for whom time does not have a monetary cost factor. The pre-machine age professional would have thought very strongly about the time-effort-return. Finishing is about expediency.
Krenov may have argued for the finishing of all surfaces, but he was an amateur, too. He did not have deadlines or even sell his work (and when he did, he asked a token amount for it).
Equally, the use of modern day methods (of creating traditional joinery) and materials should not necessary be a criticism of modern work; it simply reflects a different era of woodworking. There were no doubt plenty of 18th century builds that came in for criticism as there are 21st century builds that do so.
Regards from Perth
Derek