Yes, getting prints "right" is indeed a tricky business. You have to decide what looks good to you under "standard" lighting. But just what is standard lighting?

I print to a standard daylight–balanced halogen light source in the lab, then pull them out after they've dried and view them at various locations in my indirectly lit daylight living room. In most cases the results are satisfactory, to me. But, my prints are intended to be viewed under fairly strong direct spot lighting. They do look different (sometimes, perhaps a little dark), when not properly lit.

The question is, under general lighting are the results acceptable? A good practice, adhered to by many, is to not make final decisions about the fine print until you've "lived" with the print a few days. Of course your enlarging source, developer, toner, etc. will likely change over the course of time, and then you may have to deal with another set of variables attempting to get a "perfect" (no such animal) final print.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

As an aside, most, if not all, of the museums I've viewed vintage prints at in the last decade, have their prints so poorly lit, presumably for archival reasons, that studying them in any but a cursory fashion is impossible. I doubt if these drab presentations were what the photographer/artist originally intended.