My question was meant to be rhetorical to the OP.

They have bought a calibration device, which you would imagine has made their monitor accurate, and then have a problem in the prints, but talk about changing the calibration device.
Sort of! Calibrating a screen does only that and wont guarantee a screen to print match.
That's why I mentioned the calibration which does the monitor and the prints. Calibrate the prints to create an ICC profile for the ink and paper combinations.
In fact because of gamut differences between the screen and printer you may never get a 100% match.
You can never get 100%, but you can get closer with the right equipment. And like I said, it depends how much you want to get into all this stuff.
I had some photobooks made a few years ago and was not happy with the prints, without a calibrated monitor, unless it is a obvious mistake they made, it could very well have been me giving them files with problems. :shrug: So I got Spyder3 Pro to calibrate the screen. And it was my fault because like many people I had my monitor too bright, so when I edited an image I was darkening it to make it look 'right' on my bright screen. :bonk:
Now if I get something printed I can at least say that I can see the original on my screen with accurate colour, brightness on contrast levels and have that as a reference and take things from there.
Someone gave me an Epson A3 printer.

I hardly print, but they didn't want it, and it would have been thrown away so I took it. For that I'm going to try and match the prints through trial and error. I'm not going to spend hundreds of pounds to get accurate prints for something I hardly use. :shrug: I'm in as much as I want to be at the moment with colour management.
If was printing a lot, and especially if people were buying my images (they're not btw

) that would be another story. :shrug: