...and that's coming from an unabashed Welles devotee.

The great parts are great and it still works as a piece, but it's ultimately only decent. The book is very good but it too is not an earth-shattering masterpiece. I would rather watch "Touch of Evil," "The Stranger," "The Trial," or "F for Fake" again before seeing "Ambersons" a third time, so what unseen greatness can be hiding in 50 minutes of trimmed fat? Maybe calling it "fat" is harsh; I am sure that most of what got cut is still worth seeing, but it would also make "Ambersons" his longest movie ever. I believe that if Welles had been able to recut the recut he would have only been able to add about half that 50 minutes anyways. I would definitely watch a full version of, I just don't think it would drastically reshape my view of the film.
I do love that once again Orson slyly gives himself the best part instead of the biggest.