It seems to me that as these restoration projects continue on and get even more popular, the next wave very well may be a more dedicated attempt to restore the exact "look" of some of this old architecture if the photos and documentation is available to use.
But it seems that on most of the restoration projects I've had anything to do with the subject and decisions regarding maintenance practices and maintenance cost factors almost always comes first.
For those reasons more often than not the look of various features, bunkering particularly, is not restored to the "look" of some of the old photos and the original architecture.
Grassing down vs sand flashing up is one of the most common issues. In my experience the decisions almost always revolve around maintenance practices and maintenance costs---eg basically what the easiest and most cost effective maintenance practice is will be the way the "look" is determined.
But I see the matching of the "look" of old architecture more completely as the next wave of interest in restorations. Not just matching it but "holding" that look into the future----something that I doubt any course as ever tried to get into heretofore.
There're all kinds of areas and issues on this subject and one of the most interesting of them were some of the old "sand waste" areas on some of the old architecture.
In my opinion, most all of it was misunderstood and let go simply for lack of original architecture knowledge or maintenance reasons.
For instance, it can take a lot of maintenance work to maintain and hold the "look" on some of those old sand areas whether it was naturally occuring or designed and constructed.
Cypress, Pebble, Shinnecock, PVGC, The Creek and Engineers are all good examples of that problem and that lost look of sandy wasty areas which were generally so dramatic looking.