Graham 2.2 or SME 309/IV/V

This is on a VPI HW19 Mark 3 turntable with a Dynavector 10x5. Cart will be upgraded too.

which leads to another question - does the Graham require a different armboard mount than the SME?

as always, thanks!
I also have a VPI HW19 MK 3, and it has served me very well for a long time. Years back, it was mounted with the SME V tonearm, which I also greatly enjoyed. After wanderlust led me to try several other highly regarded arms, I returned to an SME, but this time it was the IV.Vi, which I've since lived with and never had a desire to stray from. Soundwise, I believe it is slightly better balanced than the V from top to bottom. This might have something to do with its different internal wiring compared with the V. Nevertheless, I consider both SMEs to be extremely satisfying. I've never tried any of the Graham arms, so I can't comment on them. I too am using a Dynavector cartridge---the XV-1S. It seems to form a solid synergy with the SME/VPI combo.
The 2.2 uses the SME cut out, I just bought one and it arrived today and I was reading the manual. I use to use the SME IV but have not set up the Graham so can't comment on sound. It also has the SME screw adjustment in which the arm moves to align the cartridge, a real boon to those of us whose eyesight and hand steadiness are not what they were.
When Graham changed to the model 2.0 the standard arm mount changed from the sliding SME style to a (more rigid) round style mount with 3 fixing screws. I believe the SME mount was only special order from that point. Make sure to check with the seller to ensure what you're getting. Most 2.2 arms would have the standard Graham round mount - which is said to sound better.
(Note, Phantom arms are optionally supplied with a more rigid simplified SME type base than the 1.5/2.0 version.)

I originally had an SME V on my TNT (series 1) but changed to the Graham 1.5T which sounded much better IMO on that table. I've found Graham arms to be more precisely adjustable than the SME V. The latter is not really for people who like to adjust VTA for different record thicknesses etc, no azimuth adjustment either. SME's are fine arms of course, just not for the tweaker who wants to exploit maximum cartridge performance IMO.
Mine is one upgraded from a 1.5, has both 1.5 and 2.2 decals, I'd give up a little rigidity for the sliding base. I also had a TNT series one when I had the IV.
Im not sure why it is claimed the SME has limited adjustability. I have a V and have owned Grahams and others. I check my set ups with an o'scope. I have found using the supplied alignment jig I can get equal performance compared to other arms (assuming proper cartridge compliance)The SME is fast and simple to adjust and is great for someone who swaps cartridges frequently. For me it is the most user freindly high performance arm I have used and sound wise has equaled or exceeded any other arm I have tried.
02-04-10: Rccc
Im not sure why it is claimed the SME has limited adjustability

Because compared to say, the Graham phantom or Triplanar etc, the SME-V does offer less adjustments. No azimuth adjustment. No effective length adjustment (could be an issue if you use a fixed arc protractor like the MintLp). Clumsy, non-calibrated, VTA adjustment.
As I said, it's a fine arm, but clearly limited in adjustments compared to some other arms. I'm not sure how this point is arguable - though you could argue that (to you) these adjustments don't matter or are sonically inconsequential. I have no problem with that.

If cartridges were all standard, had perfect azimuth and records were all the same thickness - this might not matter to me either. However I haven't found this to be the case. YMMV.

Tobes, Your right. I have never had a cartridge under perform in my V for lack of adjustment. I will confess I dont adjust VTA/SRA for every record although I have made a few spacer jigs for setup with specific cartridges. Im not knocking those other arms but I find I get the same performance with the V with very little fuss.