Scott is right, Wayne makes a valid point and it is hard to argue against his logic. However, and Scott may be feeling the same way, it is also hard for me to accept the insinuation that experience restoration architects do a better job at restoration as compared to experienced architects who have not. Just speaking from my solo career, I had not done a course that started out as land under water, but did, and it is very nice, I had not worked on steep, rugged ground, but did, and it turned out very nice. In some ways I think the philosophical approach to design and construction is more important than the experiance in this case. I speak with a few contractors who do work for the restoration guys and it does not always happen in the field as it might be protrayed here, and the architect is not on site as much as it is portrayed here, and the amount of research and the fees that are paid for that research are not always just to get it right in the field, so having lived through a lot in this business, and feeling that my head is screwed on right most of the time when I see a post like this I just can not accept the premise that someone like me is not a good candidate. Changing the name of the thread is not the point, having this type of discussion which is healthy is what we are after, I hope, it certainly is not intended to be personal as Scott B. has taken it, by no means, he just provided an opportunity for me to whine!!.