@noromance:
Yeah, getting the Decca to the London office was my responsibility. London requested that I send it via UPS, and I was flabbergasted (how’s THAT for an old word?) to learn that such a small, light package cost over a hundred bucks to ship from Washington State to London England. When I was selling vintage drums on ebay (over a thousand transactions---not all of them for drums, with 100% positive feedback) in the first decade of the new century, shipping a drumset to Europe didn’t cost much more than that.
I agree with you, the increase in prices the new London owners have instituted is downright shocking. I bought my Super Gold in the 90’s, and iirc at that time it’s price was $1200. By the time of John’s retirement, I believe it had crept up to $1595. After deciding to find myself a Decca Mk.4, I was disappointed that I wasn’t able to acquire one before John Wright announced his decision to retire. It was a while before it was announced that new parties had arranged to keep the London brand going, and I wondered if anyone but John could make such unusual cartridges. And if so, with the same level of expertise as that of John. I won’t have an answer to that question until I receive my rebuilt Decca 4.
I’ve always loved the look of the Blue/Gold etc. Deccas, and the London Reference even more so. The Mk.5’s (Blue, Gold, etc.) have a rather aggressive body shape---especially the front end, and the Reference has a very bold, masculine looking body design and build. There is a current AudiogoN thread with the topic of how important the look of components is to members, and though I’m not overly concerned with looks, with the cartridge I for some reason feel differently. That’s why I couldn’t live with the London Jubilee; it’s body shape is aesthetically displeasing to me. Does that make me shallow? 
The look of the Decca Mk.4 isn't as good as the Super Gold and Reference, but it's not as bad (imo) as the Jubilee.