I noticed that too, when I was studying Colnagos. From what I can tell, back in the 70's-80's, Colnagos were considered to be a 'run-of-the-mill' Italian race bike. In racing, they were ubiquitous, not unlike a Cannondale CAAD 9 or Specialized Tarmac is today. Since Colnagos didn't have the wow factor, (in those days), that De Rosa and Pinarello were known for. I've actually heard racers from those days speak of Colnagos as if they weren't of the same pedigree as the others; which I noticed two reasons for, in particular. First, despite their effective marketing and high volume sales, Colnago didn't seem trump up their features or the aesthetics on the bikes. Many high end Colnagos are actually quite plain when compared to some of the flashier bikes of the day. This seemed to further solidify the notion many racers had, that Colnagos were a tool to be used up, rather than a historically relevant example of quality and prestige that they were stewards of. To a similar extent, I believe that the aesthetics of the bike hurt it's reputation today. The understated looks of a Colnago can be subtle enough to come across as underwhelming; it had that effect on me, when I first saw mine, to the where I thought, "that's it?" Not surprising, since they say, "you buy a Colnago for the angles", (as opposed to buying it to hang on the wall and show your friends). Therein lies the secret to a Colnago's value. I mean to say that the value of a Colnago frame is almost entirely in it's function. I would venture to say that it would be hard to appreciate any Colnago you don't ride. Does that set it apart from any other high end race bike? That's for you to decide, but I will say that, set up properly, my Colnago is the best handling bike I have ever ridden.

(Disclaimer: This post mostly makes reference to Colnagos of the 70's and early 80's. I am well aware that they made some exquisitely detailed models, but on the whole, these Colnagos were comparatively plain looking.)