It fascinates me that people will go on and on about how a mechanical device produces "wrong" coloring and not allow for the fact that our eyes don't have the capacity to replicate color consistently from person to person.
I suspect MBoss has the gift of Tetrachromacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy
) a genetic condition that allows an unclear number of people to see a range of tints and hues not apparent to people who don't have this gift. Note: not being facetious about it being a "gift" when it comes to color photography, as it allows seeing banding and color casts that a non-tetrachromate can not see. However, it can be a curse when you are trying to correct for what the vast majority of people won't even perceive. I, for example, cannot see the purple cast in the hair, and prefer the skin tones of the original post example; in fact I see the skin tone of the Mk2 example as "wrong" in comparison.
We also process colors differently at a retinal level, and at a brain processing level. Talking about color as if there were absolute correct colors being reproduced in a digital photo is an interesting concept. Beyond the difference of tetrachromacy, as several people have also pointed out, variations in monitors, ambient light in the room where you are viewing the examples, and even the formula of the materials blended for your glasses lenses are going to shift colors.
Calibration tools really help. But, ultimately, like the OP admits, there is a level of personal preference for each photographer backed by their experience of how viewers/customers react that determines when colors are working. That's how a person who is "color blind" can still be a damn good photographer. Personally I've sold more "over saturated" landscapes than I'm comfortable with, but that has become the taste I've learned to work to. And yes, sorting the snark out from the sincere efforts to help resolve the original question was a pain, but ultimately I got several good links that made it worth reading the whole thing.