the entire issue is whether you want to make a personal or consensus judgment. if you want to make a personal judgment, then there is no reason not to replace "pale lilac with a topaz tint" with "the color of my favorite socks." who cares whether anyone else can interpret that? to you it makes perfect sense.
I might agree with the gold and copper, it's somewhat a personal interpretation. I take it to mean both colors represent various tints between yellow and orange, with gold being more yellow and copper more orange.
if you want to make a consensus judgment, in other words a scientific judgment, then long experience in a variety of disciplines shows that you get there by using a standard rather than personal procedure. "copper" is a dull orange, and "gold" is a pale orange yellow.
this is a misconception about color as a sensation: the obvious example is that our lenses yellow with age, but we notice no color change across the life span. our personal color experience gets remapped onto the increasingly filtered light, and color experience stays the same. in the same way we adjust effortlessly when the illuminant (color of ambient illumination) changes. color is always an interpretation of retinal data.
It is possibly explained if you consider that Females have a different proportion of Cones to Rods then men, as well as Age deterioration of our Cornea.
the counterargument is that, if we individually all have different color vision capabilities, then how can we all agree on describing a colored object? because color language is just a form of consensus interpretation, which individuals learn to map so that their descriptions match those of other people. and the surest way to do that is to restrict the color descriptions to a limited number of categorial terms used in a limited number of combinations. color description is always an interpretation of how to use color language.
of course; no question. but speech with a motivating intent is rhetoric, and speech that motivates a purchase outcome is marketing. haas's descriptions implicitly borrow from the marketing lexicon in wallpaints, foods, cosmetics, fashion and decor. they are pretty, poetic, enthusiastic, evocative, suggestive. they made you run out and look. i myself refer to 61 cygni as "coppery" because i have an affection for the pair. by all means, let us share the joy of color, and encourage enthusiasm in others.
I must say that Sissy's "unique" color descriptions have motivated me on more than one night to hunt down an otherwise obscure (i.e., non-famous) double just to see what "pale topaz with a lilac tint" was all about.
there is a significant difference between speech that intends to convey or arouse feeling, and speech that intends to record sensory data. i commended david's language because it sets a basic framework in which the OP, who has an issue with star color, can navigate his own exploration reliably.
analytic color description respects the fact that the distinction between "yellow" and "no color" is on a different level from the distinction between "straw" and "maize". it ensures that the distinction can be affirmed as a fact rather than debated as a personal difference in sophistication or taste, and does not imply a precision that is inappropriate for delicately and elusively colored star images.