The philosophical query has been raised about why the Vulcan always seem to get a better press than the Victor? When I talked with the Handley Page design team many years ago, they felt the same grief over the way in which the Lancaster always seemed to overshadow the Halifax. Radlett strove to design a jet bomber that could carry more, and fly further and higher than the Avro opposition, and the Victor did that (e.g. 35,000lb bomb load compared with 21,000lb for the Vulcan). We must get round to posting the photo of Tommy Thomson dropping 35 1,000lb bombs on the Song Song range.
But it didn't seem to make any difference, and I think the answer is two-fold. First, the aluminium triangular overcast was a more awesome sight at flying displays. Second the Victor became a multi-role aircraft, whereas the Vulcan was pretty much bomber focused. Witness the proportion of tanker or SR related tales on this thread.
Talking of which, while on the Victor 2 OCU I represented RAF Wittering on the parade marking the disbandment of Bomber Command and the stand-up of STC in 1968. My mind had wandered to the legs of the PM officer with the Nocton Hall flight when the flypast started. At below 1,000ft, in swept a Victor three point tanker, supposedly with three Lightnings hooked in trail. But only two Lightnings ran-in, leaving one hose unattached. The third Lightning had gone in during the join up, killing the pilot. Nowadays, the flying display would have been cancelled while everyone shared their pain. In 1968, the attitude was somewhat more robust.