If the campaign idea was good enough, maybe - though I think I would prefer the D&D cyclopedia to 1e/2e.
Why?
A few years ago, I was playing in 2 games, a 1e (with allthe books) and a 2.8 (Players Opt.) game.
The 2.8 game was interesting, but was, as someone said earlier, a power-gamers wet dream. Also, the house-rules began to get out of control. Only the fact it was a Birthright game kept it under control.
The 1e game was kinda fun - it was classic module-style 1e. The problem was, is that wasnt really the style of game I was interested in playing - and the game didnt really seem to cater for other ways of playing (strictly my opinion - YMM - and probably does - V).
The main problem was that in choosing to play a Human Thief, in a game that had a female LG Dark-Elf Cavalier-Cleric, I was choosing to try and suck a golf ball through a soda straw. Kinda interesting, but mostly painful.
The I ran a 2e game which transitioned to 3e. Man what a difference. I had some players that were new to d&d - and they were finding some of the 'idiosyncracies' a bit tricky. No such probs with 3e - rolling high is good, always use a d20 etc.
still, whatever works for you.