I don't know what it was ranked in 2002, but it's 72 on the most recent Golf Magazine top 100 in the world and that seems to me about right. If it's been ranked lower in the past, I'd agree that it's probably because of the exclusivity and it being less than par 70. The latter probably used to be more stigmatizing than it now is and I wouldn't be surprised if Rye moves up as that sigma goes away and more people see it--they let me on, so it can't be too hard. And everyone seems to be trying now.
But I wouldn't put it in the higher tier with a Royal St. George's or Royal County Down because the front nine is too difficult in an often-awkward way. I thought the fourth hole, which others seem to love, was golf's equivalent of walking a tightrope. It's just too narrow given the wind. Several of the par 3s--2, 7, and 14--are too difficult. The greens are so small and any miss is in trouble, except maybe short-left on 14.
Still, I think it should be in the top 100. No one seems to talk about the back nine, but holes 13, 15, and 16 compare favorably to the best at Royal St. George's. The 13th might be my favorite blind second shot hole I've played. People also probably downgrade the course for 10, 11, and 17. 11 may be ugly but it's a good hole and I thought there was a brilliant subtlety to the long par 3 17th. It's really different from the other par 3s and complements them well.
So 72 seems close. For comparison, I'd have it just below Swinley Forest and just above Bandon Dunes and Old Macdonald.