Mono Reissues and the Conical Stylus

Hi Folks,

Recently I started buying mono reissues from Speakers Corner, Impex, and have recently ordered a few from Analogphonic. They're all of the 'long haired' variety. In the process, I've come to discovery threads where posters claim that the newer mono reissue grooves are cut in a V (stereo) shape rather than the vintage U (mono) shape.
My AT 33 mono cartridge comes with a conical stylus and from what I can tell, so do the better mono cartridges, i.e. the Miyajima Zero Mono. This of course would then create an issue where it pertains to using a conical stylus in a V shaped groove.

Around November, I plan to purchase a Jelco tonearm for my modified Thorens TD 160 and after that, will be looking to upgrade to a higher end mono cartridge. However, I don't see that they're would be a viable solution to the stylus dilemma given that I will only have one tonearm. I do by the way own a collection of early mono records but would like to find a cartridge that better crosses over between my vintage pressings and my reissues. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
the groove width of the London ffrr is about 2.5 mil which is above the max spec for microgroove. Since the groove is v shaped the width has little to do with whether a conical will properly trace it.   the only issue that can arise is a 1 mil conical can disengage from a microgroove but a 0.7mil conical will not run into any more issues with a 3.2mil groove than it will with a 2.2mil microgroove.  In fact a 0.7 mil playing records previously played with a 1 mil will often be much quieter since it traces a part of the groove that hasn’t been played.  
Just measured a bit closer and the groove with is closer to 3 mil.  I should also clarify that the 2.2 and 3.2 mil numbers I gave are the "average" from the link below and not a hard spec.
Dave, here are a couple of sources which explain different styli and groove dimensions as well as other things.

I think we're loosing site of what matters, being what stylus type would work well between older mono pressings and newer mono pressings? The reason why I believe this is in need of discussion is because stylus geometry changed with the evolution of the record. I don' think anyone would disagree that the 1 mil. conical stylus, while optimal for early mono records, wasn't ideal for later stereo records. 

I understand that early mono styli track well and sound fine riding higher in the groove than a stereo styli needs to (i.e. pinch effect) however this is not he only reason for considering what differences between styli are important.
Here is a nice article on the subject.
It is the stylus radius that is the most important measurement not the shape of the stylus. The smaller stereo stylus might theoretically pick up more noise from trash at the bottom of the groove but if you have clean records what does it matter? Older Mono record from before 1962 and re releases made from the same masters have a slightly wider groove. The shape of the groove is exactly the same 90 degree V with a very small radius at the bottom. 
If you are wealthy and can buy cartridges indiscriminately, wonderful. I am not. I would rather spend my money on one great cartridge than two not so great cartridges. I have quite a few mono records and I never switch cartridges to listen to them. Might they sound better with a conical stylus and a mono specific coil layout. I do not know as I have never been able to make that comparison. I do know that a modern stylus has significantly less mass than a large conical stylus. Consequently all other factors being equal the modern stylus will track better and cause less record wear. 

thanks for the URL. My nude conical is 0.65 mil and I have no real objections to the richness of sound that I’m getting from 1950’s mono. So maybe a mono cartridge with a Shibata stylus of 0.7 mil or more could be fine; I’m not certain but I do think that the shape of the stylus is also an important consideration, just as the tonearm is.