Share your favorites on Show & Tell

Proof that Decca and London are made from the same plant in England in the Golden Age !

In Records > Classical Records > Show & Tell and Records > Show & Tell.
All items100540 of 109408Sad iron from late 1800'sDecca Record Company Ltd.From my collection
1
Love it
1
Like it

vinylrecordsaddictedvinylrecordsaddicted loves this.
rawinsonderawinsonde likes this.
Add to collection

Please create an account, or Log in here

If you don't have an account, create one here.


Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate



Posted 4 years ago

Email

ramma
(23 items)

To make it short, i purchased this item from England, its a Decca SXL 6036 factorysample record, and in the cover was the worksheet with approval of the record, the sheet states what records should be made from this master, and as you can see those are Decca LXT & SXL homemarket , and London CM & CS records stating USA Immediate.
This closes, the case with Decca contra London issues of controveres.
the only thing made in the USA where the Covers for the Londons.

feel free to make a comment on my statement

Comments

  1. rawinsonde, 4 years ago
    Good Work, Ramma... I guess that is as close to proof as could be had. I had a copy of this one on London Treasury (orange label) and as I remember, the sound was terrific! This is one of the recordings where the FFSS versions had some harshness in the upper frequencies whereas the FFRR (later) versions didn't.
  2. vinylphanatic, 4 years ago
    Hi, Thanks for posting this, it was very interesting to see. I think it is pretty well established that the Londons were made in England on the same presses with the same masters as the Deccas. I have a pretty large collection of SXLs and I have to say that for whatever reason, the Deccas do usually (but not always!) sound better. This is more true with earlier issues. I have a number of examples of London and Decca records produced from the same stampers where the difference is quite noticeable. Is the difference commensurate with the difference in price? Of course not, but I have acquired my collection over time at reasonable prices. I would never pay UK dealer prices for early SXLs.

    I have heard and read a lot of crazy theories, but the one I have not heard, and which makes the most sense to me, would be that perhaps for the given number of copies produced from each stamper, maybe the SXLs were made first and the export copies after that. it would seem logical that they would do it this way, and it could explain why Deccas often sound more dynamic and transparent. I don't think anyone would argue that the 1st record made from a stamper would be better than the 500th. Obviously the stampers deteriorate, otherwise, there would be no limit to how many discs you could press from one!

    Any thoughts? Happy listening!
  3. vinylphanatic, 4 years ago
    Regarding FFSS vs. FFRR, I agree, but only for the early FFRR label that has "Made in England..." in an arc across the top of the label. If the label has a groove, it is the equivalent of the second Decca "wideband" label, often referred to as "ED2". 70s FFRR pressings are fine, but not as good.

    I don't seem to be able to post pictures in the comments, but you can look at my post at this link for more info:
    http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=vinyl&n=946517

  4. ramma ramma, 3 years ago
    Funny, that you mention that Decca s sound better then London´s,
    i have several of the same music, both on Decca and London, and it varies which one sounds best,( i think it is down to condition and stampers G tends to sound the best, no matter if it is Decca or London), the most of the time, i even have Londons that sound better then There Decca counterpart SXL 2009/CS 6025 is one of these, but i think we can agree the most Deccas or Londons do sound great.I am equali keen on bying deccas or londons,and trying to keep prices on a sane level

Want to post a comment?

Create an account or login in order to post a comment.