Incorrect Mastering Credits: Professional Reputations affected

For over 20 years I believed that I had purchased the Doug Sax versions of the Pink Floyd studio albums in the mid nineties. Some sounded really good but others were actually pretty poor. Of course, I knew that they were all Doug Sax versions as it clearly stated that in the booklets. All I knew from my listening experience was that this guy seemed pretty inconsistent in his mastering of this iconic catalogue and that is putting it mildly! Wish You Were Here in particular was muddy and flat. No life in it at all. It was easily bettered by an original UK CD. Contrast this to Obscured by Clouds, which was rich and detailed. Quite beautiful. Due to my listening experience it was odd that so many praised on here praised the Sax versions!
Now eventually through research I was surprised to discover that in Europe many of the digitally remastered versions of Pink Floyd were not the Sax versions at all! I had been conned! This seemed greatly unfair on Doug Sax, who was, of course, a highly respected mastering engineer. Nevertheless, my opinion over a number of years was that this guy was seriously overrated. Now I know different.
I was wondering what other instances of incorrect mastering credits are out there and whether they are anywhere in the league of confusion that the Pink Floyd catalogue in European countries represents?

 

I write MASTERED BY STEVE HOFFMAN on all my CD-Rs. *


*I am unaware of any other credit screw ups. Glad you were able to sort out the Sax Floyd collection.

 

Recent Anita Baker--The Songstress (Beverly Glen Music) CD EAC values of John Matousek Hitsville Studio mastering credit. Early CD glass masterings seemed to be like the wild old west. I wonder what happened and I suspect I'll never know. There are entire discussions of "secret masterings" on the Hoffman Forum.

Japan 1986
59.9 / 79.5 / 93.7 / 72.6 / 72.1 / 68.3 / 74.4 / 69.9

US 1987
85.2 / 100.0 / 93.3 / 94.2 / 100.0 / 86.3 / 96.8 / 87.8