Samsung (170 euro, 140 pounds, 24" - I got 2)

I suspect th eizo's are out of my price range.

Look for a decent 22" CRT on Ebay, preferably LaCie or NEC. They're practically giving them away nowadays but they're still better than any flatscreen monitor I've ever seen. I'll be using them for as long as I can still source them.

Look for a decent 22" CRT on Ebay, preferably LaCie or NEC. They're practically giving them away nowadays but they're still better than any flatscreen monitor I've ever seen. I'll be using them for as long as I can still source them.

Yeah I had a CTX PR-960F for years after everyone had switched to flatscreens. CTX used to do this thing where they'd replace the monitor if it broke down within three years and the time reset after each time you got a reconditioned one. I'd still be using it now if it didn't take up half the office, I swear it was about two feet deep.
Now I am on a Samsung, which is fine for most things and cheap.

it's a 226BW dirt cheap and does the job. My only gripe is that there's no way of controlling the tilt so it's got a book under the back of the stand!

Question . . .  which Samsung are you using.       That question also goes for you, Mr. A.T. Nun.  Come on boys, a little information please.

Samsung 24" S24A350H LED, now 190 euro (since the collapse of the euro) but begin of August 170 euro, and it was a bargain then.

The perfectionists don't want a monitor like that. They want top stuff with color calibration etc, worth at least 700 euro in total. I have seen a setup like that at work and I have to admit the colors looked stunning... on his monitor.
Upload the images on a stock site and all the stunningness is gone. Why? Perhaps the stock agencies change the color profiles. Those shots look even dull on the thumbs. A buyer doesn't buy judging the full hires result, he buys on the thumbs.

I have worked on Barco's about 20 years ago as they were used in the tapestry and fabrics production industry by fashion and fabric designers. The price then was 25K euro and up (included equipment for constant calibration). We ourselves needed accurate colors for color vision research.

So top monitors are fine for those kind of applications where colors needs to be exact objectively. For stock, it doesn't matter that much (that's why I said "good enough"). The end product will be viewed on normal monitors anyways so who cares. If it's about print, the printer will adapt your colors since the same color looks different (depending on the process, dyes etc..) and the printer knows his processes best.

What matters IMHO is exact dynamic range so you can recognize details in shadows and highlights. Flatscreens have a much higher dynamic range as to luminance than CRT monitors and you will see the dreaded banding easier, especially with perfect (non-noisy) gradients as in illustrations. A simple flatscreen therefore is much better than the most expensive CRT nowadays. There are fine test images online to check your LCD visually as to flooding highlights and blacks = contrast/luminance/clipping.

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast.php
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration.htm
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html
http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/MONCAL/CALIBRATE.HTM

What also matters is to include the color profile into your jpg's and chose the best (sRGB). Your images can look pretty dull when you miss this. When saving jpg's in photoshop, dont't forget to check the "include color profile" box. When converting raw to tiff (I use Canon's DPP) always include the color profile and chose the best (sRGB).

If you take these precautions, your images will look fine amongst others on a search page and you can just do with a standard good monitor.

And here is my 1.75 cents worth:

I have 2 identical 20" Samsung Syncmaster 204t monitors on my PC.  One is connected by the HDMI digital interface and I've calibrated it with a Datacolor Spyder.  The other is on analog VGA and is not calibrated.  If I drag a photo from one monitor to the other, I can's see any difference.  When I get prints from MPIX the colors look good to me and match the screen pretty well.

My point is that I think today's LCD monitors are already quite accurate and consistent right out of the box.

buy the cheapest, I have always used a laptop screen and never got a calibration system

http://displaycalibration.com/

Me too.  And my portfolio is proof.   

What if I (the OP) want to make prints, or submit to other markets?

The printers I worked with (for printing model's SED cards) knew their job quite well. For instance, they changed the color space totally and I couldn't see any difference between my shots on paper and those of other portfolio shooters (for RM) that used a P&S.
It's all just overkill (my devalued 0.02 euro).

Just my 2 cents.   

That's what they'll pay us soon for microstock so why spoil them with 6-700 euro monitors? If you pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys in the end. A cheap/decent monitor is good enough. Compared to monitors and flatscreens of 10-7 years ago, the recent ones are brilliant.

buy the cheapest, I have always used a laptop screen and never got a calibration system

http://displaycalibration.com/

Never got any either, my monitor is a 6-y-o Hyundai.

Sponner!   look!  forget all this BS about getting the cheapest and everything. A few here assume you are using a point/shoot and only Micro. Well let them use flee-market moinitors then.

I recommended Eizo but ofcourse there are others, LaCie, Nec, etc and ofcourse CRTs, which are still very accurate. Go for one of them.

I presume you are using a dslr and some good optics, right?  well in that case, you wouldnt buy a Ferrari and put second hand tires on, would you.

You might also be moving into Macro, RF, RM, etc, in future I mean.

I would not recommend getting a simple TN LCD screen. They ARE inferior to higher end IPS and other methods of screens.
The price differences are not huge.
We where using the Dell U2410 with excellent results and I just ordered a new Dell U2711.