P. R. of China: 2002 and 2003 year issues

 Have a little time, so I'm going through the stock of materials from P. R. of China!

I see that 2002 and 2003 were quite successful for them, both in terms of the number of issues and the quality of design and printing.

Because Gov't reduced quantity printed of each issue, collectors (Philatelist) and dealers, they were a little worried if it will affect catalog and sales prices, but as I see, all was calm and not too much "jump" in sales prices. 

Comparing it in catalogue (Michel and Stanley Gibbons), I see that prices are adequately placed, not too high and still affordable for this kind of material. I haven't checked, yet, in Scott, but believe it is same as in two mentioned.

So, my personal opinion is, that it is time to fill gaps in album!

Here I put one really attractive issue, which was printed in 2002 year.

SG catalog number: 4675-4683.

Michel catalog number: 3322-3326, 3508-09, 3811-12.

Scott catalog number: 3175-3179, 3336-37, 3547-48.

Full catalog value, for set of 9 values, in mnh condition:

SG catalog = 15.00 BP,

Michel catalog = 16.40 e,

Scott catalog = 9.90 US$.

So, we see that full catalog prices are really affordable for full set of 9 values, if wee talk about Scott catalog, and on European soil it is higher, but still affordable.

I know, a lot of collectors will say that they will not spend 10.00 US$ per set, but (according Scott and Michel, actually we have three sets), we know that on web catalog or eBay, 

You can find this material with reduced prices, just 

problem come when you buy just one set in purchase, where shipping cost will be expensive, so the purchase will be illogical.

From this set of 9, we have this 0.80 RnB value, printed in booklet format of 10 stamps and 2 labels, which SG catalog value at 6.25 BP, Michel catalog have it with 7.00 e and Scott catalog have value of 5.00 US$.

Again, on internet sites, web auction/shops and probably, even in your local 

Philatelic Club, someone will have it for 50-60% of catalog value.

In the end, we can say, this is not material to call "must have", but better say, "clever to have"!