Ted,
This is a very interesting but very broad topic. Are you talking about the scale (size) of the property, the long range views, the separation between holes, the size of the design features,...? I am assuming since you mentioned The Plantation Course you are talking mostly about the size of the property and the distant views. If that is the case, you should see a course like Nanea on The Big Island which sits on twice the acreage. The views are simply amazing and you can see forever. I have described it as Sand Hills in a lava flow. Speaking of Sand Hills, that course feels like you are in the middle of endless golf holes in every direction as far as you can see.
Tim,
Yale would stand out for me as the scale of some of the design features more so than the scale of the property. As far as Olympic; not sure about that one though the removal of many of the trees has opened it up but many of the holes are still quite tight and confined.
Stanley Thompson was great at using scale with his features as he needed to as many of his sites were so vast and dramatic that his features needed to be sizable to fit in with that scale.
As far as features, architects can use a large bunker to make it look/feel much closer than it really is and vice versa with a smaller one. Same with green sizes, hollows, mounds,... Lots to discuss on a topic of scale.