For example, I don't yet see any complaints against the KJV for not distinguishing between all the shades of "love" or reproducing all the tenses.
The AV includes words like charity, benevolence, kindness, etc. It also uses tense differentiation and many other distinguishing features like will/shall, unto/to, etc., but these qualities are rejected by those who believe the "lingo" (not the language) of the reader justifies a translation qualitatively different from the original. Psalm 22:26-28 shows to whom the kingdom of Christ will be satisfying. Not to those who set God a task, but to those who meekly sit at the feet of Jesus and receive what He is pleased to feed them.
I'm just concerned that the KJV becomes the reed by which everything is measured. Whatever the supposed reason, the impression I get from its advocates is that all other versions fail principally because they are, by definition, not the KJV.
I can't speak to your impression, but only to your concern. In any other field of labour "the best" sets the standard. That the AV has set a standard is obvious from all the literature on the subject and even from the prefaces to the revised versions which have been made. The translators consciously set out to imitate the AV.
I agree with Rev. Winzer that we should be seeking the best translation, but "best" will be necessarily subjective.
A confessionally bound individual or organisation is bound to estimate "the best" according to the criteria established in the confession. This is objective, not subjective.
I'd like to share a few quotes I read today.
Please don't overlook this one: "there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue."