Some professionals also overestimate colour accuracy as well (not saying there isn't a place for it in some very niche markets...). It becomes a bit like oxygen free directional cable.
I have seen colour accuracy testing where the final product had CMYK print and was compared to a new pantone strip under a magnifying glass and rejected. I've also spent hours setting up colour profiles using a laborious process on old Macs 10 years ago trying obsessively to match the scanner with the Mac, with the Chromalin proofs with the final production printer. It really didn't make much tangible difference as there were still so many variables and the biggest impact was the printers themselves self adjusting on their proof runs.
Noticeable colour differences can look a bit off for sure but for printed runs then I can say that there was never any real difference between someone using a cheaper factory calibrated monitor to someone using a calibrated high-end monitor. The results are looked at through different eyes, under different light at different times of the day - all of which have more impact.
So if you want to colour grade for display screen use, then unless all of your audience also has the same $5k monitor then they will all see it slightly differently any way. There could be some advantage for a photographer who will be printing out and displaying in a gallery where they can adjust to the gallery lighting, or for professional fields where colour differentiation can be key to understanding the data in front of you.
I'd agree that a good dynamic range (where also supported by the others parts of the system) is more useful, but even there you can easily exceed the limits of the human eye.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
