It’s just the complex interaction of all the various caps on character power. Shadow - and Scars, which require Advancement points to heal, thereby limiting Valor, Wisdom, and Combat Proficiency. Bouts of Madness. Revelation events. The danger of wielding famous weapons openly. The dangers of Magical Successes. The difficulties and challenges that the GM presents. And the story and narrative.
All of these are different in 2E.
Any PC’s story will end in death, Madness, or retirement, and I strongly suspect that if the OP’s party had started in 2E many of the characters would have ended in one of those ways already. And an entirely new dynamic, of choosing whether to take a Famous Weapon on an adventure, of avoiding magic, of hiding their power just as Gandalf and Aragorn did in the books, would have evolved as Eye default rating grew troublesome.
That’s why I think simple use of 1E characters in 2E becomes more problematic the longer they have been played. And the OP’s characters have been played for a long time.
I think assuming you can use an earlier character sheet in a new edition is not really precedented. Those characters need to be adapted/converted, but it’s very hard to do. Should they have some scars? How far down their shadow path should they be? There’s a lot more to think about than simple skill points and Endurance.
So, if I'm understanding this argument, it's that had these same characters been played from the start using 2E rules, they might not be at the same point in the game as they are after having been directly converted from 1e, and may even be dead/retired. And that therefore they don't form a good basis for how the new(ish) Eye of Mordor rules work. Is that correct?
If so, I don't find that to address the OP's criticism. It might possibly be* that a group of characters in 2e is less likely to reach Valour 4 and have a bunch of famous weapons, but the problem still exists that characters
can progress that far, and that for those who do the Eye of Mordor rules will leave them perpetually above the threshold. So unless you are saying that in 2e nobody will get that far into the game, I don't see how the conversion from 1e is relevant.
And if the proposed solution is really "just don't bring that character you've been invested in every Wednesday night for the last 14 months, or at least leave behind that awesome sword for which you've finally unlocked the 3rd enchanted quality"....well, I just don't even know what to say to that. If that's your idea of an awesome gaming experience, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If that's intentional game design then the character sheet should have 4 ranks, not 6.
*although I doubt it. Overall 2e looks to be less harsh and unforgiving than 1e. I would expect player-heroes to die or be forced into retirement less frequently, not more.