Says LED on the panel, and they said refresh rate was just fine. Not sure what type of IPS it is, but given the explosion of IPS panels and demand these days I wouldn't be surprised if it was the real thing. $337 isn't cheap, after all.

The explosion of IPS panels is because LG figured out how to make them really cheaply. And those economic, low-quality variants are called e-IPS and I have absolutely no doubt that we're dealing with one here. (Despite the fact that specs on eBay say S-IPS.)

Also, $337 is not only cheap - it's dirt cheap.

$300 for 24'' IPS is cheap. Courtesy of e-IPS, of course. A Dell U2412M would be an example.

A decent 24'' IPS display, say a Dell U2410, will cost $500.

A high-quality 24'' IPS display, say a NEC PA241W, will cost $1000.

A high-quality 27'' IPS display, say a NEC PA271W, costs $1400.

Welcome to the real world.

I've got my eye on the new NEC P232W: 23", $569 - http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/p232w-bk

That seems crazy since the HP ZR2740w is only ~$100 more.

Obviously, he cared more about quality than size.

smaller and 16:9

yes, 16:9 are cheaper than 16:10

Nope, they are all S-IPS displays. The reasons they're so cheap is because their panels are sourced from rejected Cinema Display and other top quality display batches.

How about comparing to Dell Outlet prices?

I am under the impression that most monitors these days are LED instead of CFL.