The ads for the Graphics are BIN/make offer. If you were to suggest $200.0o what can he do spit at you?
Of the two the one with the 190 would be the more useful camera.
Both have the tripod mount/head, that's going to save some money on that item. Decent heads can cost a pretty decent dollar too.
If I were doing the calculating on the set, $100 for camera, $100 for the lens. And do some research on a head. It could be another $100 or more.
With the Graphic View you absolutely need their head. Because there's nothing else that fits the triangular rail. I've made offers on items before and it's just a beginning of a negotiation. You say 200, he says 350 etc. There may come a point that you both agree on.
I think there were some photo's of St Ansel with a Graphic View in an early edition of "The Camera".
The limiting factor would be the bellows length. With a 190mm(7 1/2") lens and 300mm of bellows You are easily in portrait distance. Landscapes? around 120-135. Wider if you like but the camera won't allow a 90mm without a recessed board.
I have a grand total of four 67mm filters and two conversion rings for all my lenses that I use them on. It didn't bother me to pay the extra money. For that I get a lot of convenience.
Ah, see, if I could get by with a 67 and some stepdowns, that would be wonderful. But alas most of my front elements are 77mm (RB, RZ) and up. That's when MC filters get really pricey!!! My multicoated red filter for the Nikon 150 SW, well, I don't even want to talk about it. Scares me to use the damn thing Then I discovered rear filters for the RB fisheye, and I really started to think...