This is fascinating discussion, and I suspect Kye Goalby's account of Langford bunkers is pretty accurate. But in all of this, as with so much restoration, what I hear is the voice of various purists claiming some authentic soul and authentic identity. The problem I continually encounter -- at too many good clubs which could be still greater -- is that architecture is an esoteric province, a niche, and that too many everyday golfers don't get it, don't care about it and don't have the vision to see what's possible.
I'm not faulting them per se (though I certainly think they are missing something important). But the task for restorationists is to make a case, win the political day, persuade at least a sensible if otherwise silent majority of the need and then to proceed with their approval or tacit agreement. In the absence of that additional political effort, all of this architectural purism gets wasted or relegated to museums. Of course that would be a shame, but it's also what I fear unless people attend to the mobilization of the membership -- or are clever enough to create a committee to lead the fight. But that requires a lot more consideration and planning than I usually see. Most of us would rather be digging up Langford plans and implementing them than selling the basic concept to golfers who think they know what's right for their course.