The most anal people I know about image colour are flower photographers and ceramicists, ever photograph a red flower and it not look anything like the flower did? Try deep blue, purple, and mauve flowers, they are a very difficult to get accurate and you have to use a camera profile specifically for the light you shot in.
A lot of trouble with flowers is even more that people seem to stick to sRGB which makes many flowers impossible to show correctly. A wide gamut monitor will give you a much better chance (of course it's true that the WB and profiles and all can still mess with things).
But with any gamut, you have to ultimately prepare the image for the end viewer who is likely using sRGB.
That's exactly it. I don't bother with a high end monitor with wide gamut and all this, because the print shops I use only accept sRGB and if I tinker with a file to make it perfect and anyone I send it to uses a medium quality laptop
To view it in, what's the point? For professionals that do commercial work and advertising posters etc, or magazines and all that stuff I can certainly see the point. But for me and lots if others, creating a ColorChecker Passport profile for daylight and tungsten in LR gets you very far from the standard colors out of your camera.
sRGB can cover every hue (colour) it might not be able to render the saturation (intensity) or the brightness (or darkness) of a specific colour, but my point was about getting the hue correct. As you point out, for the vast majority of the time a very good colour workflow can be covered with the simplest of techniques, a ColorChecker and a custom camera profile in post.
All wide gamut monitors do is give you more degrees of saturation and contrast levels, not hue capability. But wider gamut files and workspaces give you much greater post processing latitude, that doesn't mean the end product can't then fit into a smaller gamut like sRGB, just that it is much easier to get an accurate rendition into a smaller gamut of you start out with the wiggle room inherent in a bigger one.
And yet many photographers choose Canon because of their inherent colour rendition. Skin tones are far nicer on Canon than Nikon. I belive this is due to hot reds on the Canon gamut. I don't want a clinical colour accuracy, that would be boring. I want a colour interpretation whihc is nice and pleasing on the eye. In a simular way to hi fi...some components are very neutral and a little bland. I like speakers and amps which inject a little colour to the sound and add some charector to the performance. This is why I like Arcam amps and Ruark speakers. Unfortunatly, both companies have been pretty much killed by the iPhone market....go figure!
And those "many photographers" would be ill educated.
There is no "inherent" aspect to colour in a RAW file. RAW files don't have a gamut, nor a colourspace, they are rendered into a profile that contains a gamut by software, there is no quality impact or degradation by different rendering algorithms, that is why you can change WB in post to a RAW file with no ill effects, or choose Portrait, Landscape etc Picture Styles after the fact.
Anybody that makes claims of unique colours from different manufacturers needs to spend an hour or two playing with the free with your camera Utility, Picture Style Editor. Or shoot a wedding with a Canon and Nikon shooter using ColorChecker Passports and a custom camera profiled workflow. Colour is not an ethereal, organic feeling, like many audiophiles experiences , in our RGB colourspaces it is represented by three numbers, make a 157,236,36 render as a 158,230,40 instead, and there is no quality loss.
Which is the more "natural" green? It doesn't matter, you have the power to output whichever you choose regarless of what camera you captured it with.