(But now I see the sticker on the front cover too - almost glorying in their craziness!)
- So I accept it is either intentional, or a sticker applied to "style it out".... "Yeah, we actually meant to make a mess if this"..... of course you did.... of course you did :)
Only goes to show why we can't simply take record company's word for things when trying to find consistent logic we can apply to making entries here.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with you fantastic...
...Even though this is your own original entry, and your images:
The first label image: Decca - Side 1 - NANX1, which conforms to entry details.
The Second label image: Deram / Demon - Side One - DMX 446
With your back cover not agreeing at all with your second label image (or the entry details for side 2...different track and cat, and although (Bizarrely) the back cover does have the Deram logo, as per your alternate side one (2) label, it does not give the catalogue number featured there... only reference to another issue "Also available" which has a number close to your other label number, but not exact DM 446 (No "X").
So either you have a botched issue / mispress, or Decca / Deram really screwed this up in several dimensions of logic.
I hesitate to suggest you have entered it wrongly, as you have the object in hand, but if it is all as you say, and present it,, then I think the next step would be to find another copy (copies) elewhere on line, that may be not mispressed / printed, and determine from that if yours is an anomaly...
...If so, the implications are that there might be a few such araound, as clearly, one has made it's way onto discogs too! :)
These are the images taken directly from the record. They match exactly the images for the coresponding entry on Discogs. It was probably a cost cutting exercise by Deram to save issuing a new sleeve and record labels.