For me there are some similarities between the Jaguar and the SGX (and to some extent a couple more 90s experiments in the field of aborted revolutions):
- I could not afford one when they came out
- They were marketed as disruptive and paradigm shifts in the console scene
- The gaming press/media of the time was regularly giving sneak and obscure previews which contrasted with the omnipresence of other consoles, and helped build some mystery
- They both failed miserably
That's legendary material here, and anyone a bit interested in game console history cannot be insensitive to this level of drama. That's how, I assume that many, myself included, started to build some imaginary about such devices, and also got the need to actually hold and play with this stuff of legend.
However, and this is where personally the parallel stops, the SGX and the Jaguar are not ageing in the same way in their design and functionality. For instance the ridiculously big SGX+SCD2 combo has this retro-futurist look and modularity (PSU chord bridge idea is brilliant) that the bulky cheap plastic Jaguar has not; the SGX has only a few titles but the console is compatible with all the other PCE stuff while the Jaguar stands alone in its own universe of very few worthy games (only one if you ask me). And there is also a more subjective factor, that is the western vs asian game aesthetics and mechanics. The SGX benefited from Hudson's know-how and existing links with game developers obsessed with bringing game centers at home, while Atari was much more isolated in a market that it tried to join too late.
I believe that this makes the Jaguar an interesting piece of hardware for collectors, but not something you'd want to regularly plug and play with.