 Views of Street's alterations have differed. On 21 October 1864, Building News reported that the restoration was nearing completion and was of "a very spirited character". It said that the new "handsome" arch showed the east window "to great advantage", with "other improvements" including a "handsome reredos" and an "exceedingly beautiful" pavement of marble, alabaster and Minton's encaustic tiles. Llewellyn Thomas said that there might be two opinions as to the success of the restoration, but there was "no doubt" that widening the arch was a mistake, since "it has permanently dwarfed the proportions of the building". He said that the new woodwork, "though good of its kind", presented "too violent a contrast" with the ante-chapel screen. Hardy was also critical, calling the work "ill-considered". He complained that the Jacobean woodwork had been sold for too little, saying that it had been "ruthlessly torn up and sold for a mere song to a passing stranger", and described the reredos as "somewhat tawdry". William Stride, writing at about the same time as Hardy, said that the "beautiful" Jacobean interior of the chapel had been "destroyed", and Oxford had "narrowly escaped other irreparable losses". Norwich said that the restoration was "good in individual details" but was "sadly damaging to its character and atmosphere".
