Well, I went back and read the entire 30 pages of this thread, as there seems to be so many variations in these lights, what with plain Jane edc1-t, edc1-dft, edc1-dft turbo. I noticed someone had posted a pic of the packaging when the light first became "readily" available, so I took a look at my package. There are stick-on labels over the candela/lumen/throw markings; mine states 95000 candela, 650/25 lumens, and 616 meter throw, and notes turbo beam pattern.
For the guy who complained about the price drop, I bought mine in early December off ebay, and paid 192 to my door. So don't feel too bad.
Taking the light out at 3AM in a reasonably dark back yard, I noted that the spot portion of the beam is really very tight. The spill is pretty even, though I could live with a much narrower cone, and much less total photonic spillage. Life's tough that way, I suppose. But the beam looked LEP-tight.
I have the flat ring/O-ring phenomenon, and the threads seem just a bit gritty. I might try a tiny dab of aeroshell grease there, but it doesn't really seem necessary.
I'm happy with the clicky t-piece; it's what I imprinted on with my first E1B, and I'm a believer in keeping controls identical across the board, for things that I might need in a serious hurry. 2 modes, always working the same, is ideal; all controls operable with one hand is also important.
I've read concerns about the aesthetics of the lights, and taking a look at it as an object, it's true that the head seems disproportionate, but in operation it's fine, it's pocketable for me, and I would probably never have paid it any mind if it hadn't been mentioned. Now I'm thinking that an EDC2-dft might be a little more balanced-looking. Is that a sufficient excuse to buy another light that is superfluous to requirements? God help me, it probably is.
Might as well mention that I found an original E1B Backup on ebay which I snatched up because it was there; Grandfather told me that if you find something ou need and like that works well, buy two, because they'll stop making them. He should have said "three."
