Why Are Mono LP's So Undervalued By Most Classical Collector/Listeners?


Hi,
I listen to perhaps 30 classical and jazz records a week. It’s part of my job. I get frustrated by how most classical music buyers’ avoid mono pressings and only chase the stereo copies. Some of the mono versions I have heard have spectacular, natural-sounding sonics. Buyers could get these mono versions for a fraction of the cost of the same in stereo. Why is that?

I apologize in advance if this topic has already been covered.
128x128voiceofvinyl
I just can't get past the 3D imaging and visceral sense of space that comes from genuine, quality stereo recordings. As lovely as a mono recording might be when it comes to performance and timbre, it just ain't enough for this dude.  Right now, for example, I'm listening to an absolutely wonderful recording of Mozart's Marriage of Figaro via Primephonic.  The vocalists are wandering around the stage -- left & right and front to back.  An unalloyed delight.
I think its great that mono issues aren't as popular.

Leaves me with the opportunity to grab spectacular Classical and Jazz from the late 50's early 60's for cheap.

I particularly like vocal mono recordings from the divas. The 1958 Julie London album "Julie is her  Name" doesn't get any better.

 Listen to "Laura" -breathtaking on a decent setup. Easy to imagine Julie London...VA VA VOOM.
Yes, imaging is more apparent with stereo. With mono, its more subtle. I tend to concentrate on featured artists and their instruments like a Gould sonata or a Heifetz concerto. Some of my Glenn Gould Columbia mono’s are just "in the room" for me. With these type of recordings. it's more of a "what" than a "where" experience for me. 

The Julie London monos are spectacular at capturing the sense of warmth and intimacy of her lyrics. BTW, I think she slays Diana Krall.