how were copies of vinyl made in "third-party" countries

With the exception of some knowledgeable record collectors/archivists/mastering engineers in the past (decades ago), I think a lot of the learning about records occurred (at least for me) after the Death of Vinyl.™ The market turned from mass produced, fungible product that was churned out in the millions of copies (remember those days?) to used records, older copies and trying to sort through a lot of information that wasn't generally available to consumers. Thus, differences in pressing plants, decoding deadwax and trying to match up information about specific pressings with sonics, most of which was anecdotal. 

In some cases, with popular records, there could be hundreds of different pressings to choose from. People construct general rules about source country- where the record originated from, where it was mastered, etc. but sometimes the "rules" (which are more like guidelines) don't apply in reality (there's the subjective element too). For example, Patto's first album on Vertigo is a UK creation but the US pressing is more bombastic and a fraction of the price (I have both). Sometimes, UK labels like Island used Sterling in NY to master -- so you may hear differences in the vinyl compound or the care with which it is pressed. 

For a lot of the "big" classic rock stuff, I accumulated multiple pressings and each one is different- among the better sounding ones, it is just different shadings of the sonic truth. Sometimes, there is a dramatically better sounding one--for example, Jeff Beck's Truth on the UK EMI/Columbia blue black label (first press) sounds remarkably better than any other copy I've heard, including the UK second press and any Epic copy I've had or heard. (I have not heard the MoFi re-do). 

Assembling this information requires some research- the Hoffman forum is great for classic rock but you have to find threads where people are comparing pressings and their merits rather than just pronouncing X "sounds great." And their experience, as reported, is like data points that you line up-- if you are looking for bargains where an original pressing is expensive, I've found some old hard rock/psych/prog that is typically tres cher on a UK pressing that is cheaper and pretty close in sound coming out of Australia or NZ- the issue there is simply far fewer copies in circulation from the period.

I don't know anybody that knows it all. There are certain pockets of deep info that get accumulated for specific genres, or labels or bands. Some of the post-bop jazz I like was produced in such small quantities that there are no alternatives except the original small or private label pressing and perhaps a reissue (often of questionable sourcing). 

UK Decca were generally superb- from recording to mastering to manufacture. My depth of knowledge in classical is limited though I bought thousands of classical records back in the '80s when they were supposed to be disappearing-- old RCA doggies, the Deccas, Londons, Lyrita, EMI ASD and lots of boutique stuff. Hardly listen to any of that these days, but still have 'em. 

It is fun to go down the rabbit hole on this stuff, the chase to acquire can be exciting and if you are lucky and careful, you can land some pretty nice records. I do think the market is inflated right now, grading is not consistent (was it ever?) and some stuff has just gotten astronomical. For that, a good reissue if available, may make sense. 

Call me an interested enthusiast with a genuine desire to learn, no guruism on my part- I have several people with whom I share and get info from. And buy from all over the world. DHL Express is a godsend if you have a vendor with an account. Cheap and fast, reliable. 

So @steve_wisc ​​​​@grislybutter : one way to start is to put into a good search engine "best vinyl pressing of"____ [name of album]. If it is classic rock, you will get hits for the Hoffman forum, in other cases, hard to predict. (I buy a lot of jazz from the ’70s). You’ll start to see the crowd-sourced aspect to building the knowledge base. There is no one book (though there are numerous labelographies and books about record companies or artist output). There are pretty big divides between classical, rock, prog rock and jazz, among other genres. I have a blog which I am terrible at updating these days, the London Jazz Collector is very very good, and there numerous other sources. Ultimately, you try to get to the source: that is, the artist. Short of that, even if the person is still alive, some representative. I’ve done numerous deep dives to satisfy my curiosity and you’d be surprised at the replies. At one point I was bitching about a Janis Ian reissue, and Janis joined the forum to respond. This is all in your hands. Use your power wisely. :)

Bill

@grislybutter - I don't want to sidetrack this discussion with the MoFi situation but there are bad sounding all analog records and good sounding records that used digital processes. I have a thing for post-bop "spiritual" or "soul" jazz from the '70s and those records now command money. Some have been reissued. The reissues are OK but often not as compelling as the original pressings even though those were pressed during a low point in vinyl quality in the States. 

It is very much a case by case, record by record process if SQ is the issue. I tend to like "less produced" sounding records but you'd be surprised- one engineer said you'd be surprised how much artifice and studio manipulation (post production) goes into making something sound "natural." There are certainly labels that had some great output- Warner Bros, during the "green label" era released some great material- they were an artist friendly label and had very astute in house producers. Some of those records were very popular and sold in large quantities at the time of release and could be found in used bins in record stores for little money. (Used records have gone up in price in the last five plus years).

In some cases, the original records are simply hard to find now in good condition. Alice Coltrane's Ptah, the El Daoud was last pressed in 1974. It is going to be reissued and I believe the reissue will come from a digital source. Will that be a lower SQ end product? Maybe. But you would have to be patient, lucky and probably pay several hundred to find a decent original today. So, you pay your money and make your choice. (I found a copy from its original owner from the year of first release- it wasn't cheap at the time, but the price of that record has easily doubled or tripled since I bought it). 

I'm not someone who buys as an investment. I buy the records I want to listen to and treat the whole thing as a process of discovery. I did just get in Chad's reissue of Tull's Stand Up and will be curious to compare it with my UK first pressing. That can be fun too. FWIW, quality control is also all over the place- you hear horror stories of new, expensive records that come out of the shrink with fingerprints, or worse, irreparable damage due to bad pressing. 

So, I'm not sure you can make general assumptions across the board for older v newer records. I'd focus more on what music you like, which artists or supporting artists seem to appear on the records you like and research what other records they appear on- for example, there is a bassist from the period--Cecil McBee-- who did a huge amount of work in the '70s and appeared as a side man on a lot of records. I'll buy pretty much anything McBee played on. 

You find your own path, compare notes with others, learn and keep learning....

And in re Canada, there's not a lot of info-- I found a scholarly policy paper behind a paywall that said Capitol EMI established their first plant in Canada in 1976. Another source on Capitol said that they used an RCA plant for pressing in Smith Falls, Compo may have pressed some- it was the largest independent in Canada, it was purchased by Decca, and Sparton, which did Capitol records before EMI bought them. The convoluted corporate history indicates that eventually the Capitol name was dropped for EMI's Canadian operations. 

I saw very little to direct me to Canadian pressings of Harvest imprints. If you look at an example--Roy Harper's Stormcock- a cool record, it was not released in Canada until 1978 (UK is 1971) and says manufactured by Capitol Records of Canada. I suspect one could track down this information on an album by album basis on Discogs. 

That's all I got. Phew! :)

@teo_audio - you aren't off the wall on this. Discogs has pretty detailed info about EMI pressing plants and also covers the Philips/Phonodisc plants. 

I know from the history of Island Records (which did own a pressing plant at one point that was previously owned by EMI) that Island did use Phonodisc/Polygram and switched to EMI at around the same time that the pink label changed to the pink rim. (You can tell by the deadwax but it's not definitive since in the UK some older metal work was still in use- thus, UK pink rims with Phonodisc/Polygram nomenclature). I know Island UK also used Orlake for some of the pink labels- yet again different nomenclature- an independent plant as far as I know. As to ex-UK, a whole other issue. 

There was also a thing about getting early UK Harvests without the EMI logo- I have a few of those. 

The relevance of this was that when the "youth explosion" really took off- no more Perry Como, but post-Monterey Festival-- Island, a small independent label was eating the major labels' lunch. Chris Blackwell had an ear and was tuned in. The big labels needed to create imprints for this more "progressive" (as used in the past, not all "prog rock" as we know it today). Thus, Deram (Decca), Harvest (EMI Group), Vertigo Swirl (Philips),among others. 

For me, this is constant, ever continuing learning experience.