John Bernhardt,
I might take issue with one or more of TEPaul's selections, but I won't.
On second thought, yes I will.
TE lists a firm for restorations..... that doesn't do restorations
TE, I know you love these guys, but why list a firm that won't engage themselves in this type of work ?
You're only confusing people and building false hopes.
I've also seen the work of one of TE's listed architects that completely deviated from the original work, taking the club further away from a restoration and the restoration process, thereby sending the signal that the golf course was open season to non-restorative changes conceived by both member and architect alike.
A vital component in the "process" is the directive given to the architect.
It's not usual that an architect is given marching orders to RESTORE the golf course, the way it was, either originally or to some target year.
As important as the choice of determining the architect, are the marching orders provided by the club for the work.
But, that's just my opinion, TEPaul is most definitely wrong.