I got up this morning feeling contrary and after a stint of yard work -- she who must be obeyed decreed that we'd clean up the side beds -- I'm feeling more so. And I have an all-metal Star-D imitation Tiltall in the closet. Haven't used it for years, and there are reasons why.
On the one hand, Tiltalls have an integral three-axis head. To my tastes a three-axis head is much preferable to a ball head. Score one for the Tiltall.
On the other hand, and this may not be true of real Tiltalls (Marchioni or Leitz N.Y.), clamping the Star D's head tight shifts the point of aim a tiny bit. This is tolerable with short lenses, wasn't tolerable with my Questar 700 or with long (for the format) lens on a cine camera. So here's a possible (great stress possible) Tiltall weak point.
The legs have short bearing surfaces between the sections, so the tripod isn't particularly stiff in torsion. This is inherent in the design. I retired the Star-D, replaced it with a Bogen 3221 to be able to use a fluid head with my cine cameras. Cam type leg locks, same short bearing surfaces and poor torsional stiffness, especially when old. I once visited B&H and swung from every tripod on the floor. Only a very expensive and huge Gitzo had good stiffness in torsion. Only one!
I now use a Berlebach 8043 and an ancient Ries. These have much longer bearing surfaces between the sections, are much steadier than tripods with screw type leg locks.
The Graphic View II has an integral pan-tilt head. Leveling the camera is more difficult when it isn't on a three-axis head, requires adjusting the legs. I use a ball leveler (learned about them when learning film, still photographers tend not to see their virtues) between three-axis head and the tripod's platform to level my cameras.