are "LONDON" pressings made in the UK, inferior to the Decca pressings

It's interesting to read this thread about Decca vs London LPs, because it runs counter to my memory of the 1970s, when I was regularly buying classical LPs new from places like Tower Records and other emporia in the Washington, DC, area.  I had one friend who probably bought 4-5 LPs for every one that I bought, but we regularly conferred on sound quality.  As I recall, we both thought that Decca LPs were far superior (quieter, mostly) than London-labeled LPs containing the same performances.  Had something changed by the mid to late 1970s, or were we just deceiving ourselves?  I am not a "collector" per se, and I could not care less about relative market values.  We only obsessed about SQ.

@harold-not-the-barrel , thanks for the kind words!
I'm not a great Genesis fan, so I don't have first hand experience with that particular LP.

First you should understand that this so called 'Decca - London debate' only has a bairing on the classical catalogue, as these records were both pressed in the UK using the same metalwork.

From what I know the situation was very different with popular repertoire. These were generally NOT created equal and Decca apparently referred to the more common practice of sending a copy of the master tape to other markets for domestic mastering and pressing. I suppose you are aware of the large sonic difference between UK Decca pressings and US London pressings of the Rolling Stones catalogue? You might think the Stones were an exception, given the large pressing runs needed to meet market demands. But I've had a London pressing of Caravan's 'If I Could Do It All Over Again....', not what you'd call a big seller. Yet it was sonically a bad joke compared to the UK Decca.

So here's the big question: was this London reissue pressed in the UK? If it was, it's probably equal to the UK reissue. If not, you can be pretty sure the UK 70's reissue will be superior. You will likely need to open it to check the stamper codes, unless the sleeve gives an indication ('pressed in the UK' or words to that effect). The usual 'printed in the USA' text on the sleeve tells you nothing as this only refers to the sleeve itself. Still there?

An exciting moment, and this just might be one of those exceptions......

@lewm , I'm not sure about the Decca - London situation in the late 70's. Perhaps Decca had changed their export policy by then. I do know that the New Malden pressing plant in the UK was shut down completely in the early '80's and Decca's were pressed in Holland by Philips (something to do with the take over by PolyGram I think).

Edgeware, thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge of the subject. It’s possible that I am thinking of US pressings under the London label, and that would explain a lot. I will go through my collection and see what I have here because I still have anything I ever bought.

I was taking an electrical engineering degree at Imperial College in London during the early 1970's and I had the opportunity to work for Decca at their New Malden plant during one summer vacation, basically acting as a gopher in the pressing plant.
I can state categorically that the same stampers were used for both the Decca and London pressings at that time and the requests for metalwork often included both the US and UK labels in the one invoice- which explains why both issues often have the same stamper codes in the inner section.
I know of at least one copy of such an invoice which definitively proves that there is no difference.

Having said that, I have numerous copies of both SXL and CS issues of the same work and more often than not the SXL issues- most of which I acquired in the UK- sound better than their UK pressed CS counterparts- most of which I acquired in the US. The reason for this is entirely unclear, except that my SXLs were bought new, while the CSs were used.
US pressings of CS issues are generally inferior and are not worth having.
Phillips pressings can be quite excellent.