jas@proteon.com (John A. Shriver) (12/04/90)
As Jack Hill noted, a "blueback" is a London record with the back of the album printed on pale blue paper, rather than white paper. Inded, the FFSS (red) are more "collectible" than FFRR (black) label. Real purists even worry about how thick the vinyl is. In reality, London records did not go through the decline or quality in later pressings that afflicted RCA, Columbia, and others. Indeed, later pressings can be better than the earlist ones. Also, until the Philips buyout, their pressing quality was pretty consistent (reasonably good). As for the supposed superiority of the original English Deccas over the US Londons, I think that's a bunch of hogwash. They really did press them in the same plant from the same stampers on the same vinyl. There ARE differences between the different masterings (there was a decoder ring for that in TAS back when they were looking at the Phase 4 records), and some are better and some are worse. I suspect that somebody got a dud mastering on a London pressing, and blamed the London label, rather than the mastering. I've encountered Deccas that were a dud mastering, and a London sounded better! (As Sid Marks noted, if you disagree with his reviews, one or the other may have a bad mastering of pressing.) However, often the Decca cover artwork is MUCH better. The London sleeves were designed in the US, and were typically rather uninspired. Of course, US pressed Stereo Treasury records (beige label) are unmitigated trash. Only buy UK pressed London records. Rob Moon (of San Francisco) has a book reviewing the early London records. It's a good buy. The records are a very good buy, especially if you avoid paying the premium for blue paper on the back of the sleeve!