freebeer (2018-02-04 13:28:46+00:00): Hi,
Sorry for not replying sooner.  After spending time in the fresh air, I somehow was motivated to recover from my sleep deprivation.  And I think it worked, so four days later...
There are changes happening in other parts of the US to the Mapbox/DigitalGlobe Premium layers within the past weeks or days, so at least around major cities, I'd have to review the imageries before everything I write.
That said, if the Mapbox imagery only allows you up to native zoomlevel 19, and is visually identical to ESRI Clarity, and the rest are awful blurs with obvious perspective issues, stick with the former.
.
There are areas where there had been, until a couple years ago, much sharper and better imagery from USGS.  In one area I mapped, probably West Virginia or nearby, there was maybe a metre or two difference, and as you could get two crisp zoomlevels further in to see details on sheds and such, plus those details were aligned to buildings I'd traced earlier but someone adjusted, there are probably allowable government references in detail, maps that are accurate and better than the USGS Topo maps, but which aren't listed as imageries.
As the original Bing imageries were replaced by z20 images with a high level of correction, that became my reference.  You don't see it here, but where I can compare, it aligns well.
Now in other parts of the country, there is, say Texas Orthophoto also at z20 which may not quite align in detailed editing, and ESRI/Mapbox seem to have z21 and even z22 imageries in some areas.
These I sort of have to, by default, assume are aligned and corrected well to meet the standards of the sponsoring agency.  We are talking of pixels with 5cm resolution or so, versus the coarseness of maybe ten years ago or actual satellite photos of today.
I'm sure there are better descriptions and tutorials about this; I last skimmed a german wiki page about aerial imageries and offset not long ago.
If you have a known-good map reference, as are available for parts of germany, that can be used for precise alignment.
The better the imageries become, the more uncorrected mapping/perspective errors come into play, like tracing the roof but failing to slide it to match the ground level at which the image was aligned to a particular elevation model.
The general rule I see is, align to what exists.  Of course, if someone starts and adds things from 4-metre-off aerials with hills and all, that's sub-optimal, but those images are pretty rubbish to start with.
Until you get better imagery here, the oldest but clearest is probably best for alignment.  Once you can fill in the hairpieces of pedestrians, then you can worry about correcting things that don't quite meet up, and perhaps reference known-position markers will be visible.
Short answer?  It Depends.  For now, Mapbox.  It's known old; you can update it from the newer Bing/DG/ESRI.
.
That off-topic rambling unintelligible drivel out of the way, I want to apologise for not attending to the reverts sooner, and ask, should I start?
If you have changed anything since, like moved a road or building in the past two days, I think it'll be left alone from your newer changes.
If you've not moved the majority of things, I think most buildings should pop back into place.
That said, I'll start, since you seem to wish this, and I'll attempt to summarise what works and what fails (I've so far only done successful reverts with untouched items, so not witnessed things crashing and burning, yet).
I'll try to do a slow-but-good job with this...