Mike Young,
I always recoiled at the phrase, "signature architect" or "signature course".
It always conveyed a monetary tier where the "signature" was commoditized and at the upper end of the design fee scale for a particular firm, based upon the lead architect's involvement.
What I never understood, and maybe it's because I'm a moron, was the following.
If I was a developer, and for reasons I won't go into, I wanted Jack Nicklaus to design my golf course, and I approached him or sent him an RFP, and I received a preliminary four tiered fee structure from him, based upon his level of involvement, I would have returned the four tiered offer sheet and stated.
"I didn't request a design from anyone other than yourself.
I'm not interested in having anyone, other than yourself, as the architect, point man and general project supervisor.
If you want the project, at $ X, please confirm, if not, also please confirm. Thanks"
What I'd be keenly interested in knowing, is how many developers followed that route, and how the course designed by Architect B fared over the years.
I'm also aware of the "bank/financing" issue associated with architects and the weight given to Jack Nicklaus projects.
But, now, 20 some years later, I'm curious as to how those "signature" courses have fared, and at what cost.