I would like to see a photo...

Sure -- I agree with that.  For example, one might not notice any difference whatsoever in an 8x12 inch print, but clearly notice it in a 40x60 inch print, if both pics are displayed side-by-side.

My question is, if both pics are not displayed side-by-side, would the pic with superior IQ sell and the pic with inferior IQ not sell?

For sure, there are times that IQ plays little to no role in the success of a photo at all, and, as you note, inferior IQ can actually add to the artistic appeal of a photo.

What I'm asking for is the opposite.  Are there times that the lower IQ photo would not sell, but the higher IQ photo would (assuming of course, that there were not displayed side-by-side)?

When you say "the same shot", what, exactly, do you mean?  For example, if the pic with a Lomo or Diana has a distinctly differernt look (color, DOF, vignetting, etc.) then this is not what I'm talking about.

I don't think many would argue against the scene itself and the photographer being the most important, by far, followed by processing skills.

What I'm asking, however, is, for a given photographer, would the 5D3, for example, result in more photos sold than the 40D, operational considerations aside?  Or, more to the point, I guess, would be the 60D vs the 6D, since the operation is essentially the same -- would photos from the 6D result in more income than photos from the 60D?  In fact, as I said in another post, we can extend this to lenses -- would a 70-200 / 2.8L IS II result in more sales than if a 70-200 / 4L IS were used instead?