Paul Richards,
Years ago I was playing the 11th hole at NGLA with Joe McBride, a long time member, extraordinary golfer, and Board Member. As we were walking off the green I told Joe that the rear tier of the green, which was a plateau, grown as rough, was intended to be green, and should be returned to green through mowing and agronomic treatment. That regaining that portion of the green would provide additional diversity and challenge to the hole.
We reexamined the area and had some further discussions about this unusual foot pad adacent to the green, covered by rough. I suggested that it was totally unexplainable, with one possible exception, that the area had once been an integral part of the putting surface........ green.
I then asked Joe to view the green as if the fairway came from the direction of the 12th tee, and what he thought of the tier that would then exist at the rear of the green from that angle.
Joe indicated that it was sllightly higher than the other tier, but he clearly got the concept, agreed, and indicated that he would look into it.
My point is, that I think most on this site would have recognized that the rear tier, then grown as rough, was at one time a portion of the putting green, and that returning that portion as putting surface was more of a reclamation, achieved through MAINTAINANCE practices, than a restoration, achieved through RECONSTRUCTION.
I feel the same way about the front of the 10th green, which was reclaimed from rough, all the way back to the front bunker.
No construction was necessary, only maintainance practices.
With a little time and very little in the way of cost, the green was reclaimed.
Perhaps we're splitting hairs, but to me restoration implies some sort of construction whereas reclamation doesn't.
If the 12th green at GCGC was returned to its 1936 form, that would be a clear RESTORATION, due to the scope and nature of the work. If the 7th fairway at GCGC was shifted to the right, and the right side bunker filled in with sand, that would be a RECLAMATION, due to the scope and nature of the work.
I hope I've helped you understand MY view in distinguishing between the two.