Difference Decca / London records

Did someone made a comparison? I did a research in the www and the general opinion is, that the SXL are better. But in the last days I listened to a lot of both and I don't think so. I never read one posting about their differences in thickness for example (they have 200gr or a bit more), you have to change the VTA for example, no one wrote about that ... and there are some more differences ...
Your impression?
37e2ac78 c0f0 4cc4 bb90 45e735c3eb9esyntax
Your query is very vague. Ask in more detail and I think some folks here can probably help.
For a general overview, these links are interesting.

Decca London Labelography

Arthur Salvatore's take

As you know, we adjust SRA (not VTA) for nearly every LP we spin. That includes, but is not limited to, Decca/London releases of different weights (ie, thicknesses).
Thanks for the link to Arthur Salvatore. This is by far the best information about it. I got identical results, except Speakers Corner Reissues, the majority is dead and dull, I really have problems to listen to them. I compared SXL with them and there is no way that there are big differences in tonal colors, comparison with CR and Living Stereos is much closer.
Anyway, a top site from him.
For years, and in many instances I have typically found the Deccas just a tad cleaner and clearer sounding than the Londons, despite what Mr. Salvatore says regarding the identical production process of both. After all is said and done, it may just come down to personal taste. Some may actually prefer the slightly less sharply focused yet still musical Londons, which they may construe as a bit more appealing on the ears. I do agree with the assessmnet of Salvatore and others though that in certain instances some of the early stereo Deccas may sound a bit bright and possibly border on strident. I own a number of the same performances on both the Decca and London labels both produced by the Decca Record Company, Ltd. Depending on the individual recording, I sometimes prefer listening to the Decca, sometimes the London.
Just to add another couple of points: My comments above strictly refer to original Decca/London pressings, not the more recent 200g, so called "audiophile" reissues. I generally tend to agree with Syntax's assertion concerning the Speaker's Corner remakes.
A few lines to Speakers Corner Reissues ...
For comparison:
Decca SXL and London: Peer Gynt
Decca SXL and London: Espana

The Reissues are wrong in the higher frequencies, they simply hurt and all the details from different musicians are gone. They are equalized to be sonic blockbusters, in a way they remember me to MFSL. Impressive wall of sound even on a 500$ Turntable, but they can't show you anything new when your Equipment gets better. It is always the same "Performance".
The originals have a ton more details, a total different tonal color and a much deeper, detailed soundstage. You can clearly hear the differences even among the mastering engineers (Wallace / Burkett for example).
Syntax +1

the london ffrr are a very consistent sound from record to record..not all are wonderful though.... but there are many that are excellent there musical, have color, proper tone of the instruments (performance aspects) and dynamics...I have several that are dogs but there are more excellent ones then bad ones..

I have said this before... get some good ones this is what should be used to setup/judge your system IMO

Fidelity Forward
Generally I think, the Decca/London/RCA books have to be re-written. Lots of those ratings are not true anymore (Sound, Performance for example). The majority was written in the 80's, beginning 90's, most of the time a Linn LP12 - which sounds definitely wrong and can't be used for classical recordings - or similar with limited Bandwidth was used for those "reviews".
Decca/London Records Myths Exploded