Actually guys, in this case, reviews are mostly worthless. Most LCD reviews don't bother to mention panel type (TN, PVA, IPS etc), which is critical for image quality. I'm sure Tibby didn't bother to do research as usual, but the barrier to entry on research for this topic is pretty big. I think asking here was a good idea.
I recommend reading bit-tech.net's reviews of LCDs, they offer much more detailed analysis of image quality. Generally, the TN type panels, found in most monitors, especially ones with low response times for gaming, have **** for image quality. The people on Newegg that tout their $150 Sceptre displays as being good generally don't know what the hell they're looking at. Newer IPS panels, the kind often used for TVs, have low enough response times for gaming while blowing away TN in image quality and viewing angle.
Generally, Dell makes excellent monitors. Just make sure to get one with a good panel type like IPS. An easy way to filter out ****ty TN panels is to look at viewing angle. If the monitor has a 160 or 170 degree viewing angle, it's probably TN and it probably sucks. If it's 176 or 178, it's probably PVA or, more likely these days, IPS. If you can find a Dell panel that's IPS and has a decent response time, it'll probably be good. Unfortunately these are not usually cheap.
The Dell 2007FP and 2007WFP (widescreen) are still fantastic. I personally think Dell discontinued them because they had panels way too good in them for their price point and weren't making enough profit. The original models had IPS panels, but were later replaced with cheaper and slightly inferior PVA panels. Even the PVA panels are excellent. I have two 2007FPs, one which is IPS and one which is PVA. They have a higher response time of 16ms, so there is noticeable but minor motion blur in games. I've gotten used to it, though. 16ms is probably the cutoff for gaming, anything past that like 20 or 24 is way too much.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.