@NeilFawcett:
IMO, the only viable reason (though it usually is quite viable by itself) for not going with 16:10 is the price premium. Well OK, possibly also (local) non-availability.
@PCM2:
Actually, there's a small distinction to be made here:
There are apparently no 24"/24.1" 16:9 IPS monitors (or at least I couldn't find one?). 23.8" seems to be the closest, nowadays.
But there are indeed quite plenty of 24.0" 16:9 TN monitors (and quite a few MVA, too).
But with regards to "black":
I would reckon that the contrast difference between a game image and the black border bar will drown the "poor" black. The border black will always be blacker (or equal) than what the games offer on dark scenes. So it shouldn't shine through as grey or anything like that. (Though it won't be as black as the bezel...)
This is what I mean with the contrast difference factor:
http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_proof.html
(Now that I think about it, the contrast difference between the bezel and the black border might actually become noticeable, even if the game image won't do that. In this case, a white or grey bezel would be better.)
Of course, if there's bad IPS glow or backlight bleed, then that's another issue, as they will be most visible on the corners. But those apply somewhat to 16:9 monitors, too. Though indeed, it will be more noticeable with the black border.
@NeilFawcett (with regards to the other reply):
The U2413 is a wide gamut monitor, that's one reason why it costs so much (and wide gamut isn't even always a good thing, mind you), but yeah, it's probably a higher quality monitor, too. Then there's also the U2412M (16:10, £240, standard gamut), but some people say it's not very good for gaming.
@Threepwood:
Like stated earlier, you can also force the 16:10 monitor to output a pixel-precise 16:9 image just as well with pretty much equal viewing area. With the 23.8" 16:9 you get a full 23.8" 16:9. With the 24.1" 16:10 you can get a 23.45" 16:9 image. So the diagonal difference for 16:9 image is 0.35" (or 1.5%).
------------------------------
Ps. But personally, I would just use the 16:10 as-is. The FOV difference really isn't that noticeable while in-game. Or do you find your current 16:10 restricting in that way?
Ps2. Now that I checked, in another thread you (Neil) said you were going to use a KVM? I think I remember there possibly being some compatibility issues with the EDID handshake and KVMs. Not sure if that would become an issue with the "1920x1080 inside 1920x1200"... Or maybe it was only with KVM switch? I'm not sure, I'm not very familiar with either of them.
