There were no Saturn V test flights like Starship is doing, that I can find info on. Wikipedia lists 3 tests before Apollo 4, which was the first full launch.

From context I interpreted GP to be somehow concluding that Starship is "cheaper" (these test flights are "beating" the price tag of the Saturn V launches), I'm gently pointing out I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw based on empty suborbital test flights vs. taking humans to the moon and back

It would seem no one has the information I originally requested. All we have to go on for Saturn V is a per-launch cost where we don't know what's included. I agree it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but it seems to be all we have.

The test flights include R&D. The ~1b per flight of Saturn V was excluding R&D when the program was churning along.

I guess you could argue that it's never meaningful to compare anything that isn't a commodity though, which certainly isn't the case here. But I find that silly.

That's not what I'm saying. We are comparing 1 billion per operational Saturn V flight to...what? There are no operational Starship flights to compare with. What sense is there in comparing the cost of manned flights to the moon and back with unmanned suborbital test flights?

Saturn V did have at least one suborbital mission with Spacelab though. So not as hard to compare as you say.

Spacelab was carried on Shuttle flights, Skylab was launched on a modified Saturn V. And it was low orbit, not suborbital.