Would you say this reverse is a UCAM??

[MAULEMALL]

I've been out of town and came across this. A scratched up beat down 71 proof set.$5.00

[ant]

looks like it has too many breaks in the finish to be dcam but looks cam to me.

[nwcs]

I agree, I think it's a cam.

[physics-fan3.14]

I agree with the others.

[harvey8542]

Look's cam to me with that said I could see it in a dcam holder on a good day though.

[braddick]

With a proper wash (NCS) looks like it would go PR67* CAM or PR68* CAM.

[jackson64]

I wish you luck but I don't think the reverse even qualifies as cam...it may be the pictures though, but the lettering and stars are not all contrasted and for cameo designation -ALL details and devices must have contrast... the obverse has nice contrast...a Best Case scenario would be a Cam* I believe...but I'm pretty strict in my criteria

[BillJones]

The obverse is an Ultra-Cam, but the reverse is only a Cam. I have a Proof Franklin half dollar that is like this that has the "CAM” designation. When I had it out for sale in my case at the shows a lot of dealers would look at it. One commented that it had a $1,500 obverse and a $50 reverse. I guess that’s why I still own it, but I don’t mind. The obverse is stunning, and the reverse is just OK.

[Glossy]

Look's cam to me with that said I could see it in a dcam holder on a good day though.

 

I agree with Harvey.