Decca vs London?

Are the Decca and London labels the same? Am I correct in assuming that the London label is the US version of Decca?
To my knowledge you are correct. Usually I've preferred the Decca pressings as being more quiet at playback. Many Londons seemed to me to have a harshness, which the Deccas hadn't. Just my 2cents.
pretty much. original pressings of u.s. london's from the sixties are comparable to decca in terms of quality.
Not exactly.London was formed because of the split ownership of UK and US Decca.London was able to release US label material in the UK which could not be labeled Decca.London is a UK corporation (or was).A Decca UK LP doesn't necessarily have a London Records counterpart.Check the Stones early Decca releases vs. London.Decca US was started in the early 30s releasing Country and Western.Later they made Soundtrack and Original Casts a major part of their catalog.Check Wikipedia on both these labels.A short fascinating read did I mention Deram?The unipivot?One of my personal faves Delia Derbyshire?
Thanks. Actually the early Stones is what I was wondering about. I have found Let It Bleed on both Decca and London labels, and was wondering which one to snatch up.....
Decca for the Stones. They are the best but tend to be pricey in Near Mint condition.
if they are mint, get both
"Let It Bleed" on Decca is awesome.
I have three copies of Beggar's Banquet UK pressings the unboxed Decca is really nice.Though the boxed is quite nice as well.The name Decca on the label with no box around it (hence unboxed) is an earlier pressing.Though the boxed is still solidly in the all analog era.I believe I also have a Decca Let It Bleed though don't think I've ever listened to that particular pressing.
Here are 2 interesting articles on this subject which have different conclusions:
Try the links again - if this doesn't work, just copy and paste into the address bar:

Good reads.
Well Jaybo, I went ahead and got both copies. Will report back when they get here.