Geoff makes some good points but often I have have seen some of the "sympathetic restoration" become a complete redo of several million dollars where it could have been done for $500,000. I have never had a problem with architects that have their own work out there also doing restorations.....but the "restoration expert" stuff gets expensive....why? You figure.....architects and restoration experts are paid a percentage of construction.....
Also would the ODG's rahter have experience or historical knowledge working on their projects.....
REMEMBER.....only a few of the old ones were worth keeping anyway....the rest is hype.... 
I both agree and disagree with some of your anecdotes here. But you know that!
Geoff makes some good points but often I have have seen some of the "sympathetic restoration" become a complete redo of several million dollars where it could have been done for $500,000.
I couldn't agree more. Restoration University is proof of this.
I have never had a problem with architects that have their own work out there also doing restorations.....but the "restoration expert" stuff gets expensive....why? You figure.....architects and restoration experts are paid a percentage of construction.....
I agree and disagree completely. The Restoration Expert stuff is utilized for one reason--to further sell the project. Most stuff if rarely if ever followed in my experience--always giving the reason
why it can't be done, but we had an expert on board to validate the changes. It's smoke screen in a lot of cases. But then you have certain people that will go out of their way to get as much information that is possible, and their are architects willing to listen. Unfortunately most of those architects are dealing with issues--such as committee members; club members, owners etc. that don't want restoration at all, especially when you see just how cool the original hole used to be when compared to the newer version. This is where the restoration movement rears its ugly head--the resistance by those who either want to leave their mark; or can only think of how the changes will affect their own personal golf game.
Mike, it has been my experience that more time and effort is done in this for just the passion of seeing something once so beautiful, renewed then money, fame or fortune gained. I speak from experience.
Also would the ODG's rather have experience or historical knowledge working on their projects.....
Hopefully both, but this is a hypothetical question. I honestly do believe that the so-called
ODG's would be appalled if they saw their courses today. Not because f what they have regressed to, but probably more how the entire sport has lost it's soul. It's original soul. This doesn't mean technology or advancement isn't good; it just means it has to be with-in reason. Just like the people who made the changes to begin with--the ones who destroyed some of this really great original work. They were simply out of control/out of their minds.
I know this because I've read about it several times in their own words, shortly after the fall and at the beginnings of the second world war.
REMEMBER.....only a few of the old ones were worth keeping anyway....the rest is hype....
This is the portion I disagree with the most. Who is to determine what is and isn't worth saving? What happens if you have a world class golf hole on a site that only has 17 other adequate holes? How does one know EXACTLY what was once there? Whose going to do that type of research to prove it was worthy or of note?
About two years ago, we had a scholarly sort, offer the most convincing evidence that George Crump died by a self-inflicted gunshot. We also have had one architect mention to one of our participants that he found some old drawings from William Flynn in his barn. We've had Southern California better explained--as a site for some absolutely wonderful golf courses that were the end result of years of study from the guys who learned from the creative hand of nature; and we even had greens committees come to us seeking knowledge of their courses; they proper way they should be maintained, as well as the need for tree removal to retain their once classic features.
To be able to say what golf course deserves it and what doesn't, in my opinion just isn't right. Thee are just too many great golf holes in the universe that don't need such a final judgment. But also, there are a lot of mediocre golf holes that don't deserve it either. and that's my point--look a the holes, not the courses.