Hmmm, forty2. It's probably a case of you not intending this, but I find your answer insulting. Stick to the facts instead of making fun of me or my daughter.
Futhermore, a little search on the Samsung Gravity and battery will lead you to many complaints of its battery life -- and complaints of users being unable to last even a full day. Take a peak here:
Samsung Gravity cell phone poor battery life - WORLD Law Direct Forums
So you don't take this as very serious, but I'm not sold. I was using my daughter as an example, and admittedly an extreme one. However, the point is that talk time estimates do not necessarily translate directly to usage time.
I assume that if you are thinking of getting an android phone and paying data rates, you hope to do more than simply talk on the phone? Web browsing? Navigation? Email?. In fact, battery life is a known concern for Android phones in general. Do a little research on the net and you'll find that many people are debating whether the underclocked/underpowered phones are moves to cut costs by manufacturers or are attempts to control battery life.
So when Samsung comes out with a chip that is much faster than that used by others, this leads to a natural question. Is this due to them saving power elsewhere (AMOLED) or a more efficient chip architecture? Or is it simply a case of designing for pleasing spec sheets without taking into account a real world use case? Is this another Gravity in the making?
Since the phone has been in a few reviewers hands, I'm just hoping for objective experience on the battery life.
p.s. These comments are for forty2, I would like to thank you, Gremlyn1 for your thoughtful comments.