my text from a long thread about everyone becoming
a new-age "Contructeur" and co-opting the term as well:

well i guess i can agree with this, especially in
lieu of all the ;<) things you punctuate with. but
to continue on the semantic theme, when you write:
"It would be for the same reason one would buy
a Singer or Weigle over a production touring bike."
i'd still have to ask how a guy who's a new builder
or a guy who's never built _this type_ of frame/bicycle
can be a constructeur or have his bicycle called a
constructeur bicycle. i've been to singer's atelier
and that place reeks of generations of evolution.
clearly, he and herse are names that define the genre.
peter is the american incarnate of that ilk. now - and
i know this is left-handed rationale, but if jan can
opine that the japanese iterations look and are likely
to fragile to handle all that these bicycles are built
to handle - and they have been at it for a looooong time
- how can you put faith in someone who is doing this in
his first season? does it not take a certain amount of
problem solving to be considered a constructeur? and not
to be coy, but as i suggested earlier, you can't put on
a leather jacket abd "become" a thug.
i'm just trying to understand the market-driven-ness of
this construcreur craze.
e-RICHIE