What if we let someone repaint Guernica, or Mona Lisa, or Las dos Fridas?

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Nice explanation! 

Peter,
I don't know the answer to that question or which word is dirtier - renovation or restoration 

To reiterate, I have NEVER done a pure restoration of a golf course. Not sure I could or if it is even possible.  Take what Forrest Richardson and I did at Mira Vista G&CC in CA.  We did our best to research how the course evolved and tried to bring back/restore as much of what Hunter and Watson had done as we possibly could.  There was a ton of interpretation and guesswork but we used all the historic resources (photos, plans, aerials,...) that we could find.  We even did some hole re-routing to try to bring back some of the original hole designs that had been changed.  What we didn't do is just come in and completely redesign/remodel the golf course even though it may look that way to some. There was a ton of research involved. But one thing we did "restore" for sure was the original name of the golf course - Berkeley CC 

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:


You keep bringing up that quote of mine about maybe only 10% of old courses should be restored, but I knew deep down that you wouldn't REALLY restore any of them.



I've worked on several projects I consider true restorations:


Bel Air
San Francisco Golf Club
Pasatiempo
The Valley Club
Camargo
Shoreacres
Yeamans Hall
next year:  Dornick Hills


Somerset Hills would be another, except they don't want to put back the original 10th hole.


In none of those cases did I change things to "restore the design intent" [your term] or the "shot values" [Mike's term, although I do think we have restored the original strategy . . . just not for players who can hit it a lot farther than the players of the 1920's].  We put all the features back onto the ground where they used to be, and maybe left a few extra back tees and some forward tees if there was room.  That is what Peter defined as a restoration.  What you do is not.


I know you think this is a hopelessly backwards approach, and yet here are the current U.S. rankings of those courses:


SFGC 21, Somerset Hills 23, Shoreacres 24, Camargo 26, Yeamans 47, The Valley Club 55, Pasatiempo 59, Bel Air 68  [I am embarrassed for the people who voted George Thomas's masterpiece that low.]


Only SFGC and Bel Air were ever in the top 100 rankings before their restoration, so I guess not everyone agrees with your premise that tinkering would make them better.

[Tom_Doak]

To put it simply, what I don’t understand is: when did renovation became such a dirty word?

I mean: it’s a necessary & useful process, and one with the potential to add great value to a course and a club and to ensure that golfers more fully enjoy the game for years to come. And it’s been a process (and part of the profession for gcas) for so many decades.

So when and why did folks start dodging the word renovation and start talking almost exclusively about ‘restorations’ instead?

It happened right after a couple of prominent restorations were done, and got a bit of attention.  Salesmen quickly realized that the word was an easier selling point to older memberships than "renovation" which triggers people's fear of change.


Those opposed to something try very hard to corrupt the language around it so that the original meaning will be diluted or lost.  If you think it's bad in golf architecture you should see how it works in politics   

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Your response sounds a bit arrogant if you ask me.  Not everyone gets to work on all the top name courses like you might get to do.  But that doesn't mean I haven't made a significant positive difference to the many courses that I have worked with that I felt had some kind of historic value that was worth investigating and trying to restore.  Not all of us only get to work on Top 100 potential golf courses but that doesn't mean the lesser ones are any less important to the golfers who play them. I tried to use two examples of Top 100 potential courses that we both had some involvement with, Cherry Hills and Oyster Harbors, which I felt DID fit in that category of worthy of more true restoration.  What do you call what I proposed to do there?  I know you saw our plans.  And why didn't you include those two courses in your list of "true restorations"? Did you do something less with them 


Many of the courses I get to work on are courses like Suneagles or Copake or Waynesborough or Brookside or Hanover or Bucknell or Champaign or...  that have some classic design history but many times have been so changed that it is impossible to do "true restorations".  At Suneagles for example, how do you "restore" 10 greens that have been completed remodeled by Fazio?  You can't.  All you can do is guess what was there from old photos, drawings, aerials,...  That is not "true restoration" by Peter's definition.  But with all these kind of courses we have strived to do our best to restore what we could as I explained in the Mira Vista example. On one project I have going on the green contours have changed by as much as two feet or more from sand being tossed onto them from the greenside bunkers.  It is no simple task to get all those green contours back to exactly the way the original architect had them (and sometimes the clubs won't allow it anyway because they like how they have evolved).  Did C&C do a "true restoration" of Pinehurst #2?  You know as well as I do the answer is NO.  They weren't allowed to touch the greens but that project is called a "restoration".  This is the nature of restoration work. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Your response sounds a bit arrogant if you ask me.  Not everyone gets to work on all the top name courses like you might get to do.  But that doesn't mean I haven't made a significant positive difference to the many courses that I have worked with that I felt had some kind of historic value that was worth investigating and trying to restore.  Not all of us only get to work on Top 100 potential golf courses but that doesn't mean the lesser ones are any less important to the golfers who play them. I tried to use two examples of Top 100 potential courses that we both had some involvement with, Cherry Hills and Oyster Harbors, which I felt DID fit in that category of worthy of more true restoration.  What do you call what I proposed to do there?  I know you saw our plans.  And why didn't you include those two courses in your list of "true restorations"? Did you do something less with them 

You suggested that it might not be possible to really restore a course, and when I cited several examples, you call my response arrogant? 


You keep bringing up Cherry Hills and Oyster Harbors, and it seems a sore subject.


Your main contribution at Cherry Hills was the suggestion to move one hole entirely to lengthen a bunch of others, which the club wanted to do in its quest to get a professional tournament back -- I will let Peter tell us if that's "restoration" but I did not count it.  [That lure of hosting another U.S. Open was why I said no to consulting at Cherry Hills for many years, before I finally said yes.  It means restoration will take a back seat.] 


As for Oyster Harbors, I can't answer your question, because I don't remember ever seeing your plan -- I usually don't.  Honestly I didn't even remember you had done one for them.  I was told they had been talking to a couple of other architects, and no one mentioned your name.


Everyone's clients are special, and I do not see where I denigrated yours in any way.  I've not seen any of the courses you named, so I couldn't comment if I wanted to.  The only thing I said about your work is that it is not "restoration" by Peter's definition earlier in this thread, which was easy to deduce from your own disavowal of the idea of "true restoration".   So, I'm not sure why the judgment of my response, but what others think about me is really none of my business.

[Sean_A]

What happens to any piece of art is determined by the owner.  It's much easier to BS an owner/board of a golf course than a fine piece of art.

That depends on the owner:  publicly owned art is being modified now to be politically correct.  California, of course, leads the way:


https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-george-washington-san-francisco-mural-20190628-story.html

Art has been modified and even detroyed for hundreds of years by religious zealots etc.

Ciao

[Sean_A]

To put it simply, what I don’t understand is: when did renovation became such a dirty word?

I mean: it’s a necessary & useful process, and one with the potential to add great value to a course and a club and to ensure that golfers more fully enjoy the game for years to come. And it’s been a process (and part of the profession for gcas) for so many decades.

So when and why did folks start dodging the word renovation and start talking almost exclusively about ‘restorations’ instead?

It happened right after a couple of prominent restorations were done, and got a bit of attention.  Salesmen quickly realized that the word was an easier selling point to older memberships than "renovation" which triggers people's fear of change.


Those opposed to something try very hard to corrupt the language around it so that the original meaning will be diluted or lost.  If you think it's bad in golf architecture you should see how it works in politics   

Although I disagree that anybody does a true restoration because of grass heights, tree sizes and other things, I do take the point about language.

Tons of people want to cash in on famous golf terms. Using the word words links, Redan etc to market and describe when it clearly isn't the case is rampant in golf. This kind of thing goes back 100 years because folks know the power of marketing.

Ciao

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

In none of those cases did I change things to "restore the design intent" [your term] or the "shot values" [Mike's term, although I do think we have restored the original strategy . . . just not for players who can hit it a lot farther than the players of the 1920's].  We put all the features back onto the ground where they used to be, and maybe left a few extra back tees and some forward tees if there was room.  That is what Peter defined as a restoration.  What you do is not.

Were those back and forward tees there from the beginning? If not, then it doesn't conform to Peter's definition:


Example: a 1920s course was originally 6350 yards long, with two sets of tees, and fairway bunkers some 200-225 yards off the tee, with very few trees, and large & well-contoured greens with slopes sometimes in the 3-4 degree range, and deep green-side hazards set hard against the edges.A restoration would result in a course that is 6350 yards long, with two sets of tees and fairway bunkers some 200-225 off the tee, with very few trees and well-contoured & sloping greens with penal hazards set right up against them.That's a restoration. Everything else is a renovation.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
My point was that “true restoration” in golf course design is almost impossible to accomplish.  I don’t know how for example you restore an original green that has been completely blow up and/or moved?  Once those internal contours, etc are changed, they are lost forever.  These days you can of course map out greens but most courses I work on don’t have anything like that.  But I am not going to argue with you about your “true restoration” projects, maybe they are close.  But those courses clearly fall in that category of elite and deserve to be restored as close as possible.  But even you didn’t feel Cherry Hills and Oyster Harbors deserved “true restoration” or you wouldn’t have taken on the projects.  I know what was done at both and they are not true restorations and that was your call not mine.  You keep saying my main contribution at Cherry Hills was rerouting #8.  Honestly, if I had not gotten involved with that course three years before you came on, there would have been nothing to restore because the club was leaning to hire Tom Fazio or Rees Jones (they even interviewed Nick Faldo to propose Master Plans).  I know what was being proposed at the time and if they went through with it, the course would look nothing like a Flynn design when all said and done (very much like a Hills redo like he had planned for Lehigh).  Saving the Flynn design and leaving the opportunity to still restore parts of it was my main contribution as far as I see it. 


As I said, most of my projects are not deserving of “true restoration” as Peter defined it.  And by that definition I said clearly I have done none.  But that doesn’t mean I don’t do restoration work.  I just define it differently than Peter does which was my main point to begin with.  If I am working on a Ross or Flynn course like Pocono Manor, it may not be worthy of true restoration, but it is worthy of investigation to see what aspects of the original design might be identified and/or restored.  I don’t look at courses like that as having a free license to just go in and do whatever I want to the design.  Many architects would not bother doing any research and just propose their own ideas.  That is fine if that is how they work but I don’t do things that way.  What for example did you do at Washington G&CC?  Did you do a “true restoration” there?  If not, why not?  My guess is for the same reasons I am stating.  I am not being critical, I am just saying that most courses don't lend themselves to true restorations.  It is just not really possible or practical with something that is not static in nature.  Just my opinion.  <blockquote></blockquote>

[Mike_Young]

Example: a 1920s course was originally 6350 yards long, with two sets of tees, and fairway bunkers some 200-225 yards off the tee, with very few trees, and large & well-contoured greens with slopes sometimes in the 3-4 degree range, and deep green-side hazards set hard against the edges.A restoration would result in a course that is 6350 yards long, with two sets of tees and fairway bunkers some 200-225 off the tee, with very few trees and well-contoured & sloping greens with penal hazards set right up against them.That's a restoration. Everything else is a renovation.

This is why I call BS and Smoke  and mirrors on so much of this stuff...I don't care if you call it renovation, restoration, redan, biarittz...I just don't care...Find a guy who can put it back like it was intended, if it is worth it, don't be tempted to mess with it, don't F it up and go get another project...it's that simple...my big bitch on the entire Reno/resto business is when some board member tell me some reno/resto guy has designed 50 or 60 courses when in actuality he did some bunker jobs and green jobs and sometimes just master plans... so IMHO the most misunderstood element of design by the average golfer is not reno vs resto  but  reno/resto  vs. original designs...

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Why are you so hung up on whether someone just did reno/resto vs original designs?  Who cares?  Isn't what is most important to find someone as you say who can "put it back like it was intended, if it is worth it, don't be tempted to mess with it, don't F it up and go get another project."
Do you believe only Golf Architects who have done original routings can do this successfully?  These guys most definitely can do that, IF they want to. 

[Sean_A]

Tom,
My point was that “true restoration” in golf course design is almost impossible to accomplish.  I don’t know how for example you restore an original green that has been completely blow up and/or moved?  Once those internal contours, etc are changed, they are lost forever.  These days you can of course map out greens but most courses I work on don’t have anything like that.  But I am not going to argue with you about your “true restoration” projects, maybe they are close.  But those courses clearly fall in that category of elite and deserve to be restored as close as possible.  But even you didn’t feel Cherry Hills and Oyster Harbors deserved “true restoration” or you wouldn’t have taken on the projects.  I know what was done at both and they are not true restorations and that was your call not mine.  You keep saying my main contribution at Cherry Hills was rerouting #8.  Honestly, if I had not gotten involved with that course three years before you came on, there would have been nothing to restore because the club was leaning to hire Tom Fazio or Rees Jones (they even interviewed Nick Faldo to propose Master Plans).  I know what was being proposed at the time and if they went through with it, the course would look nothing like a Flynn design when all said and done (very much like a Hills redo like he had planned for Lehigh).  Saving the Flynn design and leaving the opportunity to still restore parts of it was my main contribution as far as I see it. 


As I said, most of my projects are not deserving of “true restoration” as Peter defined it.  And by that definition I said clearly I have done none.  But that doesn’t mean I don’t do restoration work.  I just define it differently than Peter does which was my main point to begin with.  If I am working on a Ross or Flynn course like Pocono Manor, it may not be worthy of true restoration, but it is worthy of investigation to see what aspects of the original design might be identified and/or restored.  I don’t look at courses like that as having a free license to just go in and do whatever I want to the design.  Many architects would not bother doing any research and just propose their own ideas.  That is fine if that is how they work but I don’t do things that way.  What for example did you do at Washington G&CC?  Did you do a “true restoration” there?  If not, why not?  My guess is for the same reasons I am stating.  I am not being critical, I am just saying that most courses don't lend themselves to true restorations.  It is just not really possible or practical with something that is not static in nature.  Just my opinion.  <blockquote></blockquote>

The discussion isn't about the work, it's how the work labelled to sell it. Folks don't call a spade a spade because they know fudging the truth works better.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
I don't argue with you.  Look at what was done at Raleigh CC over the last ten years.  The last two efforts there were both touted as restorations?  I guess the most recent was a restoration of a restoration 

What would you call the work C&C did at Pinehurst #2?  Is that course representative of a "true restoration" per Peter's definition?  It seems to be touted as that by many. 

I know what I do and listed several examples.  I sure don't try to mislead anyone.  I even stated clearly that I have NEVER done a true restoration per Peter's definition or promoted that I had or even could do one if asked. 

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
Why are you so hung up on whether someone just did reno/resto vs original designs?  Who cares?  Isn't what is most important to find someone as you say who can "put it back like it was intended, if it is worth it, don't be tempted to mess with it, don't F it up and go get another project."
Do you believe only Golf Architects who have done original routings can do this successfully?  These guys most definitely can do that, IF they want to. 

ONE MORE TIME...this isn't about reno/resto for me other than fake resumes....my gripe is the guy who a board or a client thinks had designed say 50 courses when he might have one or two or none but he list reno/resto where some could have been one or two bunkers...same goes for looking at young guys who apply to ASGCA and list 5 courses they worked on under their ASGCA principal...names no where on the scorecard/they didn't have to sell the project or make the payroll but it will be listed as their design...huge difference...

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
We are in agreement if that is what is going on.  I know the ASGCA is still trying to figure some things out when it comes to design credit.  I wish them luck.  Is Ron Forse a member or can't he get in because he doesn't meet the criteria for original routings?  I have a lot of respect for Ron and if he can't get in, NO restoration expert will ever get in.  Also that means there won't be many new ASGCA members anytime soon. 

[Sean_A]

Sean,
I don't argue with you.  Look at what was done at Raleigh CC over the last ten years.  The last two efforts there were both touted as restorations?  I guess the most recent was a restoration of a restoration 

What would you call the work C&C did at Pinehurst #2?  Is that course representative of a "true restoration" per Peter's definition?  It seems to be touted as that by many. 

I know what I do and listed several examples.  I sure don't try to mislead anyone.  I even stated clearly that I have NEVER done a true restoration per Peter's definition or promoted that I had or even could do one if asked. 

Mark


You are talking to the wrong guy.  I don't think it is possible to truly restore a course unless there is incredibly specific info on grass heights, tree heights, locations, bunker sand type and depth etc etc. IMO, all these works are renovations with many seeking to restore elements of a specific time frame (which may or may not be original).  To say P2 was renovated is a joke. The greens are obviously nowhere near to what Ross left behind.


Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Seems there is a bit of disconnect when it comes to what level of detail is required for a "restoration".

When I was young, I spent a couple of years doing rough framing on a new housing project, building exterior/indoor walls, doorways, floor joists, installing trusses, etc.  The rule of thumb for measurements needed was within a 1/8 inch, 1/16th on some of the more critical junction points.  While that worked great for building houses, its nowhere near what is needed for companies that are creating computer chips/asics.  The level of preciseness required for those is obviously orders of magnitudes greater.

I would guess that most actual restorations are shooting for the "rough framed" close-enough category...and highly doubt anyone is even shooting for super preciseness of the latter.

[SL_Solow]

It seems that Mike's position has devolved to a requirement for truth in advertising.  I have no idea how some architects are describing their prior work.  When we interviewed architects, we asked for examples of recent work and we followed up with the clubs in question.  If someone rebunkered a course, he should say so.  If he was involved in tree removal, greens shaping, changing mowing lines, removal or the addition of water features etc., he should say so. Inflating your accomplishments is a common problem in all businesses.  There are lawyers who bill themselves as trial specialists who have served as 2nd chairs and drafted pleadings but who never examined a witness or made a closing statement in their lives.  So long as they tell the truth its fine with me because there is a first time for everyone.  But misleading a client in any field is plain wrong.  I think that is what Mike is suggesting.

[Mark_Fine]

Sean/Kalen,
I agree with you both and have been trying to say the same. I don’t really believe it is possible to do “true restoration” as defined by Peter when it comes to golf courses for all the reasons mentioned ad naseum. 


SL,
If a club checks references and past work done (which I would suspect most of us all provide) it should be hard to BS.  I do however believe there are honest differences of opinion about what is restoration vs renovation etc.  I cited Pinehust #2 as one example.  Has that course been restored or not?  I have “complete respect” for C&C.  How do they describe what is there now? 

[SL_Solow]

Mark,  Labels don't impress me; they mean different things to different people.  I want to know the scope of the work.  If I am interviewing a trial lawyer, I don't care what she labels herself.  I want to know how many trials she has participated in, their size, the issues and what role she played.  Then we talk about the case.  Similarly, the architect should tell me about his experience, describe the nature of his work and the role he played.  Then we can talk about his vision.  If he is doing something for the first time, convince me that it is worth taking the chance.

[Pat Burke]

What if they replaced a president(s) on Mt Rushmore
Emotions and ideals Of current overriding the ideals and emotions of another time

[JMEvensky]

It seems that Mike's position has devolved to a requirement for truth in advertising.  I have no idea how some architects are describing their prior work.  When we interviewed architects, we asked for examples of recent work and we followed up with the clubs in question.  If someone rebunkered a course, he should say so.  If he was involved in tree removal, greens shaping, changing mowing lines, removal or the addition of water features etc., he should say so. Inflating your accomplishments is a common problem in all businesses.  There are lawyers who bill themselves as trial specialists who have served as 2nd chairs and drafted pleadings but who never examined a witness or made a closing statement in their lives.  So long as they tell the truth its fine with me because there is a first time for everyone.  But misleading a client in any field is plain wrong.  I think that is what Mike is suggesting.

I inferred the same--architects who inflate the level of their past involvement are a problem. But wouldn't more "blame" fall on the Board/Green Committee who hired a guy with a resume thinner than advertised? Ultimately they're the ones responsible for doing the due diligence and making sure the guy hired is the right man for the job.

[Mark_Fine]

I just watched the video on the “restoration" of Pinehurst #2. 

https://youtu.be/wxgFX2jyihk

It is very well done and I actually think it provides a great summary of what many of us (I know I go through most of this) when doing what I will call “restoration type work”.  Is it “true restoration”, you tell me?  What label should be put on work like this?  Some here say we should call a spade a spade. 

C&C as well as Pinehurst's Robert Dedman Jr and Don Padgett II are featured and comment on the project.  Right out of the gate Robert and Don state that the restoration was designed "to restore the course’s natural and historic character, and the strategic options that were the centerpiece of Ross’s vision"! I know some here don’t like when I have talked about trying to restore design intent.  Seems like this is part of what they were trying to restore.  They go on to say they wanted to capture “the spirit” of Ross that had been lost as well as position the course for future championship golf.  Bill and Ben state that they wanted to capture the vision of the course from the 1935-1960’s period and they relied heavily on an old 1943 aerial found by Craig Disher (Craig is awesome by the way, he has found important aerials in the past for me and many others).  Bill states that they had a lot of information, "enough to be almost dangerous” about the course.  But they only tweaked two of the greens.  In fact they rarely mention the greens as those were apparently off limits even though many of us know how they evolved over time. 

Bottomline, Pinehurst #2 in golf course architecture is like the Mona Lisa in paintings.  Ben called it a museum piece in the video.  What is #2 now?   

[Jeff_Brauer]

ONE MORE TIME...this isn't about reno/resto for me other than fake resumes....my gripe is the guy who a board or a client thinks had designed say 50 courses when he might have one or two or none but he list reno/resto where some could have been one or two bunkers...same goes for looking at young guys who apply to ASGCA and list 5 courses they worked on under their ASGCA principal...names no where on the scorecard/they didn't have to sell the project or make the payroll but it will be listed as their design...huge difference...



First, not sure how you morph this into an anti ASGCA rant, but then again, it is you.....


First of all, the requirement has been down to 3 projects for a few years.
Second, if we held the requirement to those who sell projects (and who is to say an associate hasn't sold for his boss?) we wouldn't have qualified architects like Marzolf, Lipe, etc.  We have considered that idea on several occasions and found it wanting for a few reasons. 


As to credit, I don't think ASGCA has much to sort out. Any design credit for membership is just intended to make sure different applicants from the same big firm are claiming the same projects.  They shouldn't, and of course, whether public, private or "for ASGCA membership" the rule has always been that the principal of the firm gets to choose.


Forrest and I were discussing this as a side issue this morning by phone.  In the day and age when you can search the internet and find out most of a gca's life story and work history, does any board really get bamboozled by some associate falsely claiming credit for his former bosses' work?  Yes, a few do and have, but its not prevalent, no more so than, say, voter fraud in the Georgia election......   (hey, if you mention ASGCA to ring my bell, turnabout is fair play)


Have a nice holiday!


BTW, as to the central question, maybe Kalen has it right.  While it really isn't important enough to enough people, I suppose there could be some sort of rating system or maybe we just encourage the four or five golf journalists who cover such things to at least come up with a loose label system, i.e., renovation, restorvation, loose restoration, sympathetic restoration, true restoration, etc.  I agree many courses have been called a "restoration" that really have the new architects stamp on them more than the "can't tell they were there" stamp.

[Mike_Young]

ONE MORE TIME...this isn't about reno/resto for me other than fake resumes....my gripe is the guy who a board or a client thinks had designed say 50 courses when he might have one or two or none but he list reno/resto where some could have been one or two bunkers...same goes for looking at young guys who apply to ASGCA and list 5 courses they worked on under their ASGCA principal...names no where on the scorecard/they didn't have to sell the project or make the payroll but it will be listed as their design...huge difference...



First, not sure how you morph this into an anti ASGCA rant, but then again, it is you.....


First of all, the requirement has been down to 3 projects for a few years.
Second, if we held the requirement to those who sell projects (and who is to say an associate hasn't sold for his boss?) we wouldn't have qualified architects like Marzolf, Lipe, etc.  We have considered that idea on several occasions and found it wanting for a few reasons. 


As to credit, I don't think ASGCA has much to sort out. Any design credit for membership is just intended to make sure different applicants from the same big firm are claiming the same projects.  They shouldn't, and of course, whether public, private or "for ASGCA membership" the rule has always been that the principal of the firm gets to choose.


Forrest and I were discussing this as a side issue this morning by phone.  In the day and age when you can search the internet and find out most of a gca's life story and work history, does any board really get bamboozled by some associate falsely claiming credit for his former bosses' work?  Yes, a few do and have, but its not prevalent, no more so than, say, voter fraud in the Georgia election......   (hey, if you mention ASGCA to ring my bell, turnabout is fair play)


Have a nice holiday!


BTW, as to the central question, maybe Kalen has it right.  While it really isn't important enough to enough people, I suppose there could be some sort of rating system or maybe we just encourage the four or five golf journalists who cover such things to at least come up with a loose label system, i.e., renovation, restorvation, loose restoration, sympathetic restoration, true restoration, etc.  I agree many courses have been called a "restoration" that really have the new architects stamp on them more than the "can't tell they were there" stamp.

Jeff,
Was not intentional to bring up ASGCA...just used it to make a point....some of those you mention don't realize how important it is to be able to sell a job until it is too late....And they continue to find blood is thicker than water...have a great hoilday...