This old debate was founded in verifiable science, but is still highly subjective in home viewing. I can tell you as a cinematographer, skin tones are never consistent project to project, and often scene to scene....quite intentionally. It comes down to your sensitivity and tolerance. It is quite subjective. Even watching my own work, I can accept some modest variance from what we delivered. In the film world we see colors rendered differently with the different film stock manufacturers (Eastman vs Fuji for instance) all the time. Some Fuji was reknowned for delivering oversaturated greens and reds. In fact, it was often chosen for that reason.
So, I have always been very tolerant with the RS1 because I am used to seeing variations that are "normal"...and I would have no way to tell if it was delivered that way or not (unless I did it). Even then, I once was in the middle of a telecine session for a commercial where the first scene on roll one was on a soccer field at early morning. Every blade of grass was backlit, therefore insanely bright green. The ad exec's comment was "The grass isn't that color in" wherever. I tried to explain the effect of sunlight on his perception, and I pointed out how good the people/actors looked. It didn't matter. That grass was just not right to him. Of course, his point was ridiculous.
The RS1 would not be chosen as a reference for a telecine session, but I can tolerate the RS1 at home. I'll happily take a bit of color variance to gain the great step in native (no-iris
) on/off contrast. Go for the deal.