If the question is are all Konas cool, then obviously not, especially most modern ones. If it's are some Konas cool, then obviously yes. If it's are Konas generally cool, then it's hard to say because they vary so much. Whereas all On-Ones are cool, ditto Cotic, ditto Fat Chance, Kona have made too many bad bikes and have kind of lost their way in terms of what they stand for.
I object however to the suggestion that all pre-97 steel Konas are cool, albeit I would say that as I have a 97 Kilauea and a 97 Lava Dome. But both of them are hugely better bikes than the 92 Cindy I used to have - lighter, much better frames, better geometry, and the 97 triple-butted P2 was the all-time classic. But in particular, all the 97 steel frames were identical to the 96 ones, only the paint changed. And the 97 colours and decals were way better than 96 and IMPO the all-time best Kona look. So how can anybody say that 96 Konas are cool and 97 ones aren't?
I would agree though that they started to go downhill after c1998. If you look at the frame specs, they built up to a peak in 96/97, e.g. the Kilauea and Explosif having double-butted stays as well as db Columbus Cyber/Max main tubes. After 98 they progressively de-specced the frames each year to save money, changing db tubes down to plain-gauge (e.g., on the alloy Cindy), whereas they had been up-speccing each year up until 96/97. At least this is my recollection, but I no longer have access to the data they used to publish. Can anybody confirm or deny?
Before anybody says it, I appreciate that frame spec isn't the same as cool, but I think the sheer quality of frames like the classic Cinder Cone meant that you could buy one and upgrade the parts over the years and they were basically so good they would justify any amount of upgrading, whereas a modern Cindy just isn't good enough to be worthy of XTR or whatever. IMHO it was this ability to stand upgrading that was one of the main things that made the classic Konas so cool.