MOST BEAUTIFUL


1935-1940 Jaguar SS 2 1/2 Litre Saloon - I always loved these from the moment I first saw them. Beautiful cars.





1955-1959 Jaguar Mark I - I would describe these as a "Gothic cathedral on wheels without the pointy bits" - beautiful. I prefer the Mark 1s to the 2s because of the thicker C-pillar compared to the slimmer C-pillar on the Mark 2s.





1958-1961 Jaguar XK150 Fixed Head Coupe - In British Racing Green? Yes please. 





1968-1973 Jaguar XJ Series I - I love the XJ Series I and Series II (but between them I prefer the Series I). This is the distinctive XJ series for me; the car which started it all. Beautiful.





1975-1978 Jaguar XJ6/XJ12 Coupe - Save the best for last! This is the most beautiful Jaguar ever made in my opinion. I love the simple yet timeless elegant styling, and in green with a black vinyl roof (as in the photo below) they are so gorgeously gorgeous! 







UGLIEST


1975-1990 Jaguar XJ - Although the earlier (chrome) models look better than the latter plasticized versions, I find it overall to be an ugly car.





1992-1994 Jaguar XJ220 - "Wimmer, are you crazy!? That car does 0-60 in like 4.2 seconds and pulls a bla bla skidpad on the track bla bla bla...." So? It's ugly as crap if you ask me. Supercars of this shape are usually ugly, and the XJ220 is no exception. Hideously ugly. Period.

Let me guess; because I didn't list the E-Type? I never thought they were "that beautiful" to be honest.

And I personally am more into graceful sedans and coupes, not sports or supercars. 

Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 17, 2017, 07:39:55 AM
Let me guess; because I didn't list the E-Type? I never thought they were "that beautiful" to be honest.

And I personally am more into graceful sedans and coupes, not sports or supercars. 

Yes, and the XJ was gorgeous as well. There are ugly Jags, and you didn't list any of them.

Quote from: Rockraven on August 17, 2017, 07:43:31 AM
Yes, and the XJ was gorgeous as well. There are ugly Jags, and you didn't list any of them.

Design is subjective. 

The recent X-Type and S-Type are bland, but not necessarily ugly. It's all subjective! CHILL! 

Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 17, 2017, 07:50:24 AM
Design is subjective. 

The recent X-Type and S-Type are bland, but not necessarily ugly. It's all subjective! CHILL! 

Dude, I'm completely chill. 

I've always considered the XK 140 to be the most exquisitely beautiful...



but there are so many beautiful Jaguars.

Quote from: FoMoJo on August 17, 2017, 08:30:57 AM
I've always considered the XK 140 to be the most exquisitely beautiful...



but there are so many beautiful Jaguars.

Oh my, yes.

This, of course, is achingly beautiful, but a competition model C Type, circa '51-53

Quote from: FoMoJo on August 17, 2017, 11:08:06 AM
This, of course, is achingly beautiful, but a competition model C Type, circa '51-53

The XJ220 is completely amazing in person especially in BRG

*potato pic*

I dunno, there's way too much car car aft of the driver.

Quote from: Laconian on August 17, 2017, 11:44:26 PM
I dunno, there's way too much car car aft of the driver.

There needs to be for the 217mph top speed.  The underbody aero is race car level stuff.  It's awesome.

I've seen an XJ220 in person, I didn't like it. Then again I don't like most supercars which have such shapes. I find them ugly. That's just me. 

Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 18, 2017, 04:43:31 AM
I've seen an XJ220 in person, I didn't like it. Then again I don't like most supercars which have such shapes. I find them ugly. That's just me. 

That's because they aren't sex machines like this:

Quote from: Submariner on August 19, 2017, 07:54:26 PM
That's because they aren't sex machines like this:

In all seriousness I find that Ford LTD  to be better-looking than the XJ220. By far. 

Quote from: Submariner on August 19, 2017, 07:54:26 PM
That's because they aren't sex machines like this:

Yeah, buddy.  Look at all of those sexy straight lines and sharp corners.  None of those ugly, curved forms.

Quote from: MX793 on August 19, 2017, 07:59:29 PM
Yeah, buddy.  Look at all of those sexy straight lines and sharp corners.  None of those ugly, curved forms.

Seriously, that '70s LTD is stylish compared to the dull XJ220. I'm being very serious here. I find the XJ220 to be dull, dull, dull and ugly. The design never appealed to me.

Remember when I posted snapshots of that Bugatti EB110 I saw on the road? I was excited that I had seen one on the road, but design wise I find it to be an ugly car. Most supercars of the "low and flat" design are ugly, in my opinion.

Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 20, 2017, 04:03:31 AM
Seriously, that '70s LTD is stylish compared to the dull XJ220. I'm being very serious here. I find the XJ220 to be dull, dull, dull and ugly. The design never appealed to me.

Remember when I posted snapshots of that Bugatti EB110 I saw on the road? I was excited that I had seen one on the road, but design wise I find it to be an ugly car. Most supercars of the "low and flat" design are ugly, in my opinion.

I've personally never found any of the modern era Bugatti supercars all that attractive.  They're very chunky and heavy-looking.  A bit blunt, really.  On top of that, the EB110 looked like a kit car.  The Veyron, with its softer edges, looks like a bar of soap.  I have similar criticism of the Audi R8.  While the very rounded/blunted, soap-bar style kind of works on a small car like the early TT, it doesn't translate as well to a larger car, IMO.

The XJ220, on the other hand, is lithe and sleek.  One can see how the design language was adapted to the later XK coupes (and Aston DB7).  It's curvaceous design done correctly.  Very much the spiritual successor of the very curvaceous C and D type racers.

Quote from: MX793 on August 20, 2017, 08:07:59 AM
I've personally never found any of the modern era Bugatti supercars all that attractive.  They're very chunky and heavy-looking.  A bit blunt, really.  On top of that, the EB110 looked like a kit car.  The Veyron, with its softer edges, looks like a bar of soap.  I have similar criticism of the Audi R8.  While the very rounded/blunted, soap-bar style kind of works on a small car like the early TT, it doesn't translate as well to a larger car, IMO.

The XJ220, on the other hand, is lithe and sleek.  One can see how the design language was adapted to the later XK coupes (and Aston DB7).  It's curvaceous design done correctly.  Very much the spiritual successor of the very curvaceous C and D type racers.

Goes to show how in the end design is completely subjective.

The royalty (XK140 and C-Type) have already been mentioned, but we can't forget:




And,





And of course,

I don't think there is a single Jaguar that I would call ugly. Some are less beautiful than others (X-type, S-type, XJS, pre-facelift XF are the ones that come to mind), but none are ugly.

Oh geez almost forgot:

Quote from: TBR on August 27, 2017, 03:39:10 PM
I don't think there is a single Jaguar that I would call ugly. Some are less beautiful than others (X-type, S-type, XJS, pre-facelift XF are the ones that come to mind), but none are ugly.

Good objective response. I tend to agree with this opinion, except that there are two Jaguars which I find awfully ugly (and I posted them).

It's all subjective of course.