Some people like to see the 109 as an example of superior German engineering, but in reality it was a flying VolksWagen.
Although it pains me to admit it being a 109 freak... I agree.

I dont remember where, exactly, but I read an article a few months back written by a guy who flew in a then newly restored bird (think it was a G6) for the first time. Just about every word of the "review" was great - awesome descriptions of the smallest details and what it was like to fly, etc, etc but he kept on hinting at its build quality indirectly - more than once mentioning how shocked he was by how much the A/C seemed to shake, rattle and squeak all around him, as though it were a sum of parts rather than a single, forged tool.
Now, I suppose its difficult to draw a truly accurate assessment because the A/C was originally built 60+ years ago in the first place and, secondly, the quality of the restoration is unknown.
Be that as it may, the build quality of the 109 vs. the 190 is fairly well documented by the pilots who flew them, again in an slightly indirect sense. IIRC, Gunther Rall was particularly outspoken, in post-war interviews, in favor of the 190 for several reasons, most of them aggregating to what we think of today (or at least, 10-20 years ago, in the automotive sense) as "German engineering." The single piece wing of the 190 was probably one of the most significant factors in these assessments as any perceived lack of structural rigidity in the 109 would only be pronounced by the two-piece wing design.
Arguments for both cases, I suppose. Hell, Ive read/seen plenty of Allied pilot interviews where Jug drivers who were forced to convert to the 51 late in the war couldn't say a single positive thing about the Mustang and long for their 47 the whole time. Each to his own. I guess when youre getting shot at with real bullets, strength and survivability take priority over an extra 5MPH.