Couldn't agree more. I rushed to buy one of these classic models
before the facelift came out for these exact reasons even though I
wanted the new 20v JTD.

I first saw the 156 in 1998 and thought it was unbelievably beautiful
and ended up buying one in 1999 (my first ALFA). Now SIX years later I
still think it looks amazing.

Not sure if anyone has noticed but on the new 156 the front wings have
been squared off from the lights to the A pillar. I think this
captures why the facelift fails. The 156 has allways been a car of
stunning Curves, the facelift has just put a few angles at the front
and back and totally forgot about the middle and how it all flows.

As for the 166, I think it has lost all its finesse. Looks overweight
now. I had one of these for a year and it never ceased to amaze me how
gracefull it looked, be it stationary or moving (very quickly in
Germany, :-) ).

On Sun, 16 May 2004 07:10:37 +0100, Barry Bingham
> wrote:

>Saw a copy of "Practical Classic Car" or some such in WHSmugs yesterday
>& they were listing cars made in the last five years most likely to
>become classics in x years time.
>
>156 was top of the list, with a prediction that it would be the earlier
>pre-facelift cars with original nose, interesting metallics and wood
>steering wheels which would be most sought after. As owner of a 2000 in
>Nuvola this underlined why I have kept this car for four years and have
>decided (for the first time in thirty years of car buying) that I shall
>keep a car until it is at least five years old.
>
>Which brings me to Giugiario's nose job. Most of the coverage has been
>favourable, probably because the full depth 147-u-like grill is, in
>isolation an object of drama: indeed it is easily the best thing
>(aesthetically) about a 147. But, while the restyle still leaves the 156
>a lovely car, I can't help but feel that the innate "rightness" and
>intense beauty of the da Silva original has been compromised.
>
>This even applies to the mild tweaking of the rear: the light units now
>turn down instead of up. In so doing they subtly (&, OK, very slightly)
>alter the previous relationship to the curves in the rest of the body.
>This is change for change's sake. But the nose??? This is I fear a
>significant dilution of the car's beauty.
>
>One of the most extraordinary characteristics of my 156 has been its
>ability to elicit praise from non-car people, especially women, who find
>the car (and of course the colour) beautiful. Massively entertaining to
>see the 4 year old 156 get far more attention from the girls than the
>nearly new £25K+ Audi TT bought by a male colleague for the express
>purpose of attracting the girls... I have shown two of these women
>photographs of the facelift. "Not as good" was the shared response. I
>have to say - after looking at the result in the metal at Brooklands 2
>weeks back- that I agree. And I'm unsure about the whole "corporate
>nose" thing anyway - on the 166 I think it is aesthetic vandalism to
>stick on the 147 grill. The 166 is a large car with a subtle and mature
>appeal. The original grill suited it well - the drama of the 147 nose
>(which is great on the small Alfa & pretty damn good on the GT) is ill
>at ease on such a car.
>
>Every car needs a nose suiting its proportions, style and intended
>audience. "Corporate nosing" f***ks this up. With the 156, I'm not
>knocking Giugiario - as corporate nose restyles go, its really very
>good. But with a car this beautiful, not as good as leaving well alone.
>
>So my proposition on the 156 is: the most beautiful production saloon of
>recent years is no longer in production. It has been replaced by a
>significantly less beautiful car and history will bear this out...