just an observation for comment

I was giving my 20.00 one year old black crows war paint album a spin , it sounds good but a little muddy, then my 35.00 new copy of the rolling stones exile on main street, better. then my thirty year old 2.99 zz top dequello album, sound quality way better on every level. so much for new tech. im wondering if i should even bother with these 30.00 reissues, and just buy clean used.
IMO, in the end it's all about the quality of the original recording and transfer processes in the first instance. Nothing that comes after that can repair damage done at the origin of the recording. Thus, a re-issue of a sonically great LP will typically be great. A re-issue of a sonic turd will be a turd or maybe a little better if you're lucky.
master tapes degrade over time. i have never heard a reissue outperform a good early pressing. now finding a good early pressing is another story...
Go to a reputable "used" record shop and get the (mostly) cheaper originals. Screw the new re-issues. I'm skeptical of their merit.
First, I am not an LP collector but listener and my goal is to find the best sounding copy of a title that I really, really like. While I agree with most of the above comments I cannot say all the reissues do not stack up to good, early pressings.

For instance, I have a pristine original copy of Alan Parson Turn of a Friendly Card that I bought in 1980 and have played on what was then a pretty good table and a Shure V15 Type III tracked at 1 gram. I kept the record safely stored all these years and it is still clean, both sonically and relatively free of annoying surface noise. Then I bought the Classic Records, 200 Gram reissue of this album and heard what excellence on vinyl truly is. Quiet as a CD but with all the warmth and dynamics that we embrace vinyl for. Same with Supetramps Crime of the Century. I have an original pressing, MOFI Original Master and both are quite good. Until I heard the Speakers Corner 180 gram reissue of this record and this is now my ultimate, go to disc for this classic album.

Of course, APP and Supertramp were always known for meticulous engineering in the first place so that helps. Now I have heard some of the Back to Black reissues that were less than desirable too. I just point the above out to not readily dismiss all reissues.
It depends, for instance I bought a few of the Hollies and Youngbloods mono vinyls on the Sundazed label and they are AMAZING for sonic quality. My guess is these masters were not run over as often as their stereo counterparts.
The LP collector rule of thumb is to seek the original LP from the first stampers from the country of the recording's origin. Its rare that any reissue will sound better.

This is because there is a feedback loop between the record label and the artist. That is what test pressings are all about- audition. This feedback cycle is broken when LPs are issued in other countries and of course it rarely exists when LPs are reissued (Roger Waters is allegedly working with Acoustic Sounds on an Amused to Death reissue, so in rare cases that feedback look can still be there in the better reissues).

The original LP is not always easy to find! That is when you look to the higher quality reissues, IMO. It makes a difference how important it is to you have that recording sound as good as it can.
I collect first pressings in several genres, and in general I prefer them to audiophile reissues, but there are exceptions. An example would be the Cisco reissue of Steely Dan Aja, which cannot be beat. Another example would be the Music Matters Blue Note reissues, which invariably blow away clean first pressings (I know because I have both).
The LP collector rule of thumb is to seek the original LP from the first stampers from the country of the recording's origin. Its rare that any reissue will sound better.

Totally agree with those reissue findings. But in the 70s and 80s very often there were British bands who's LP was pressed and released in both the UK and US. I would always look to see where the album was recorded. I think in this case the UK pressing sounded better due to the smaller production run and higher quality control. Case in point; Kate Bush, pressed in UK, US and Canada and then released.
My 2 cents:

Purchased King Crimson album at T.H.E. show last Jan.

It sounds like someone sneezed on it and let it dry.

Just the worst record ever.

I can't remember the table where purchased (NOT Music Direct or Acoustic Sounds).

If I can find the receipt, will try to get satisfaction this Jan.

Beware of strangers with candy...
For what it's worth......
Just finished comparing "new 45 RPM super duper brand new 200 gram pressings" of the Dead's American Beauty and the Allman Brothers' Idelwild South. My mint condition original LP's from my mid 1970's high school days, lovingly played over and over and over again for the past 38 or so years (and simply cleaned with an AQ carbon fiber brush for about 10 seconds per side prior to each playing), sound WAY better.
alot of folks making great points. i too have had the occasional new record or reissue sound great, but as much bad as good, and at thirty to forty dollars a pop , with better tech. and materials at forty bucks i should be impressed more than 50% of the time. dont they listen before they sell? an example a recent purchase of a queen reissue was so bad i only listened once then filed it away.but my neil young after the gold rush,fantastic. mostly just venting , as i love this hobby and love listening to music.
Vinyl is OLD tech, not new.

It has some unique advantages in some cases, but marketing hype obscures the reality, making people expect better results always under the false pretense that vinyl is inherently better in all or most cases.

The reality is it can indeed be better, but only in certain cases, and getting to that state is not trivial.

So it still makes for a nice new hobby if one is up for it, but just don't expect a new panacea in all cases.

For older folks like me that have had records for years, its a no brainer to invest in what is needed to be able to preserve the investment in records over the years, many of which offer outstanding sound quality.

Used records in good shape for reasonable price is the way to go in most cases IMHO.

The packaging and artwork inhernet with lp format is another feature of vinyl that can help justify the investment for many, including me. But nowadays, digital has the most to offer for most.
I decided to try measuring vtf,at the correct position ,by using a stack of CD's to be about 3mm under the surface on which the record rest's .
The digital scale is quite popular.
Adjusting for 1,75 grm on the CD's ,and then with the scale on the surface where the record rests,read 2,9 grm's.
Which means most of us using this scale, are running our cartridges too light.
I've been buying old Columbia,RCA,Decca records from the 50s and 60s because even though I may mot prefer to be listening to the soundtrack from Camelot, it sure as hell beats listening to some of the flat (digital?) crap coming out now. Wide open sound stage, startling dynamics, female voice to die for, delicacy, air etc. all miles better.
The problem I have with buying used records again and again is damage that can't be seen, only heard. I find albums that look to be in great shape, then get them home, only to find out the previous owner(s) destroyed the album, most likely from playing it with a damaged stylus. This has turned me off from buying loads of used albums like I used to. If I had to guess, I'd say about 15% of the used albums I buy are either warped (hard to see until you have it on a turntable), or have needle damage that makes it unlistenable.
Here is the problem with many reissues. In this case they mislead you into thinking the quality is better than the original because the LP is released on 180g vinyl. There is no mention of what source was used to produce this album; no remastering, but since it is 180g, it is "audiophile quality."

John Cale