Jeff:
The Valley Club, Camargo, Yeamans Hall, and Shoreacres are among the clubs that have taken me up on my definition of restoration ... And it's out all four of them into the top 100 lists.
Maybe I don't understand your definition. You faithfully restored what was originally there, no movement of bunkers, no added length.
The Valley Club and Camargo and Yeamans Hall are 100% faithful restorations, as best as we could do with the information we have. The committee at The Valley Club wanted to put in a couple of back tees and I disagreed, so now they've got another more local consultant, taking a bit too much credit for the restoration. [I don't really mind additional tees, as long as you don't move the original ones, an added tee doesn't change things for the people who don't want to play it. However The Valley Club was 99% restored and I advocated strongly for 100% on principle.]
Shoreacres did move a couple of bunkers in toward the fairway, instead of widening the fairway from 60 yards to 80 as they originally were. It just seemed like a less expensive and more practical solution.
At other clubs I have not been able to convince them to "restore" under the strict definition; most have wanted new tees further back, and on many of them I have obliged. Occasionally I have added a fairway bunker, usually under duress.
For my big fan Mark's edification, none of these projects were undertaken with the goal of getting the course onto a top-100 list. I only cited the rankings because you insisted that no club would ever do such a thing, and I presumed that meant because you thought it was a step backwards. There are times when it's the right way to go. It just isn't suggested as often as it should be, because too many architects and too many green chairmen want to change something to attach themselves to the history of the course [and, in the former case, justify their paycheck].