Graham 2.2 or SME 309/IV/V

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.

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.