NO DEAL. How I see it: You should have years and years of experience using the EOS 1N (released in 1994) rather than assume the 1V is the be all and end all of photography and the one camera that must be in your hands: it is not. The real meat in the sandwich is putting a $5,000 L-series lens on the front -- that is where your money and enthusiasm should go. It is after all only a 35mm camera.
The 1N can do everything a photographer needs, and I speak from 24 years experience as a professional landscape/scenic user (incidentally my 1N was recently serviced to remove dust from the upper prism/AF target panel -- a 1 hour job and the very first service of the camera since bought in August 1994). The 1N was bought (along with $13,000 of lenses) because of irritating problems with reliability of the silly, plastic-y EOS 5 (a camera I definitely would not recommend). Though I have used it briefly, the 1V has never appealed to me because of the high level automation and clustered metering which is much tighter than the 1N (and from experience I know I do not needmore AF focusing points). I, and others like me, are not interested in fancy camera electronics, AF, frame speeds and automation: we spend money on lenses (not Tamron. Not Sigma. Just Canon's best).
The 1N and 1V are both excellent (and heavy) cameras in competent, experienced hands used with quality Canon lenses (the AF/AE matrice is hobbled by using third-party or adapted lenses, as Canon never licensed algorithms to third party manufacturers), but if an amateur went angling for a 1V, I would indeed steer him down to the 1N, just for some "nursery" experience, and I can see that is needed by your question of the differences between the two cameras (custom functions are still hand-me-downs from the 1N pedigree). Guaranteed the 1N, available for peanuts now when it cost me $4,000 (body only) in '94, a beautiful, silent, fast and powerful camera. Buy that, and put your spare change toward a couple of L-series lenses.