Is the London System the best opening ever for amateurs ?

With one opening you cut drastically the amount of theory needed as white.

So you can concentrate on the other aspects of the game (Endings, strategy, short calculation).

And the london seems perfectly fine, since even carlsen uses it with success.

Yes, but it's boring.

colle all the way...and queens gambit

1) its dull

2) for lower rated players i.e. yourself 1e4 is considered the best learning experience

3) I always found the greater the number of possible replies to Whites first move i.e. Blacks replies to 1e4 or 1d4 2c4 then the more interesting the chess. 

"Best opening ever" is a huge exaggeration.

No. In a good opening, you need to create some sort of asymmetry, in order to have a reason to play on, and to have a point to prove ("Hey, I played Nimzo-Indian as Black, I don't have two bishops, so I set out to prove that in this positions knights are better").

The London System, developing your white pieces as 1 d4 then Nf3 and Bf4, is good for quickly developing pieces and then playing c3 and e3 and Nbd2 results in a White version of the Caro-Kann or Slav Defenses.

This limits a Black counterattack and puts White in a position where your pieces tend to interact and defend each other, reducing chances of dropping a piece.

That's great for beginning players, but the disadvantage, to me is that it;s harder to see a good middlegame plan. Against low to middle-rated players, I'd rather go with 1 e4 and try to aim my pieces at the Black K and attack him. But I've been considering trying it out: remember that the only job of the opening - outside of very-short-time-control games - is to get you to a playable middlegame where you can see enough in the position to plan a middlegame strategy.

Higher-rated players, though also can get a lot out of the London System. A good intro video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtBMFWuwv1E) is:

Its vanilla ice cream.  Nothing wrong with it, its just nothing special.  

Hm, the one I started with when I was the kid was definitely Sokolovsky (Orangutan), it' not really that good for actual live games, but it's good to start with to get used to training and learning, I've found it to be. But we all like different approaches. 

1. e3 is great in 3-check chess variant.

The London System is indeed a great opening for amateurs of almost any level.

For absolute beginners, it follows the basic precepts of development and fast castling.  As a bonus, it controls the center very well.  Compare that to the Italian, the sister-opening most of us learn at the start, which is always vulnerable to a quick d5 thrust from Black.

For the ‘improving beginner’, the London System has the advantage of keeping all the pieces firmly together and protected, lessening the chances of hanging something.  Again, compare that to the Italian, where the loose position of the Bc4 can lead to tactical complications, such as 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5.

For the enthusiastic amateur, the London System allows one to reach a playable middlegame without worrying about excessive theory learning.  It’s one system to play them all.  Compare with 1.e4, where you need to at least have an idea against the Sicilian, the French, the Caro-Kann, the Scandinavian, the Pirc and Modern, not to mention 1…e5 itself.  The London is much less work, allowing you to spend your study time to improve your overall game, not just your opening repertoire.

The main drawback is that it gets boring playing the exact same thing every game.  That’s … not much of a drawback, really.

A shout-out should also go to King’s Indian (Attack) set-ups, which can be played against anything with either colour, as well as related ‘English’ set-ups with c4, Nf3, g3, Bg2 and 0-0, which I used a great deal during my 1600-1800 days.

Great responses, full of insights, thank you.
I'm definitely not  going to giving up on openings.