The purpose of this study was to evaluate the colour errors of visual shade selection by five different shade guides. The maxillary left central incisors of sixty participants were visually evaluated by two groups of prosthodontists, with different clinical experience. The shade selection results were recorded and the most selected tab was determined as the resultant shade for each tooth. If totally different opinions were obtained, consensus was needed to determine the resultant shade among the observers. The colour distributions (L*, a* and b*) of each tooth and shade tab were measured using a spectroradiometer. The coverage errors (CEs) of each shade guide and colour differences (DeltaE values) between a tooth and the selected shade tabs were calculated. Two-way anova and Tukey's post hoc analysis were used to evaluate the differences of CE and DeltaE values among shade guides and clinical experience (alpha = 0.05). Coverage errors and DeltaE values in all of the five shade guide systems were all beyond the clinical threshold of 3.3 units. The consensus led to a better colour matching than that of the single decision group in Vitapan 3D-Master and Shofu NCC shade guides. A significant difference (P < 0.001) was found among DeltaE values of the shade guide system and clinical experience. In conclusion, all five of the shade guide systems used did not achieve clinically compatible shade matching. However, the Vitapan 3D Master shade guide system resulted in the lowest CEs and DeltaE values. Consensus could be helpful in enhancing the aesthetic results using Vitapan 3D Master and Shofu NCC shade guides.