My argument would be that *none* of them have "done it right". Tuvok's method of emotional control seemed to be to maintain an almost constant time-released form of irritation. Sarek was pretty good at it, but he had an ego, both for himself and for his people and culture, that he only seemed to overcome when his family was in danger - and then, only until the danger had passed, it would seem.
And Spock, for most of his life, was perhaps worst of all - I mean, yes, we regard him as the template Vulcan because he was the first we were familiarized with. And he had the same more-Vulcan-than-Vulcan thing going on that Worf had with his Klingon-ness, later - but in both cases, at the core, that behavior was about insecurity: Spock's insecurity that being half-human meant he was somehow "not Vulcan enough" (and Worf's insecurity that being raised by humans made him "not Klingon enough" - combined with him having been taught an ideal of what Klingons are by his human parents rather than being around *real* Klingons who, like most people, fail their own ideals regularly). Which means (ironically?) that Spock being so "good at being Vulcan" was a manifestation of what may have been his greatest *failing* as a logical Vulcan. Only after his death and return did we see him finally become comfortable in his own skin, which in a way made him a better Vulcan precisely *because* he no longer illogically cared so much about being a good Vulcan.
BTW: By the account in "Spock's World", Surak himself didn't "do it right". What he wrote and taught were ideals - but he made plenty of decisions that were moved by emotion. In truth, his very first conception of his teachings was moved by fear and sadness and a will to do something about them for his world.