NGD Rusti Guitars Lotus #1 headless

[Giest]

Yea, Rusti made some line changes, after saying the guitar was fine lol. As far as the OP being a doofus that's been mentioned well enough and I don't think it's really a cursory matter to drive it home further. The perspective we all have is full frontal OP now, I just think it's worth noting that in the background there's a 5k$ arboreal shit someone took that started it all.

They've both contradicted themselves so many times, which is why I said before it's like watching two lunatics carry on a conversation and some-crazy-how manage to keep it together for more than thirty seconds without cancelling each other out.

 

[Cloudy]

Nope, but I ordered another build from him via a friend. Will be funny to see how it looks this time! Acc. to messages it is soon getting finished.

Yikes, been loosely following along this train wreck of a thread the last couple days but this is just a full blown psycho move. Don't be surprised if you (and potential the friend you roped into that decision) get black listed by a bunch of luthiers after this.

 

[leftyguitarjoe]

I'm coming out of retirement just so I can say I was here. This is beautiful.

 

[jahosy]

Nope, but I ordered another build from him via a friend.

Why, after the unsatisfactory review? I wasn't happy with a minor finish defect on my brand new Skervesen, sold it after a month and cancelled my second order that they had just started.

And to think that i was rooting for OP

* before anyone jumps in; i DID mention about the finish flaw in my EBay listing.... phew

 

[DirtyPuma]

I think your description of how the thread unfolded is completely inaccurate.

There's multiple revolving issues:

OP Receiving a guitar with issues and flaws, OP's weirdly combative attitude, OP being dishonest in his attempt to sell the guitar to someone else, and now his story wildly changing every other post.

No one sided with Rusti on the initial receipt of the guitar, but some now do because the claims of not offering warranty repair were false. To the public, OP's belligerent attitude and snake like behavior with the listing and justification for how he listed it turned the negativity towards him.

Also hiding behind "have you played the guitar" is such a meme way to handwave criticisms, you don't have to play a guitar to validate objective observations that the OP laid out with a microscope in the first page.

That's the issue, the instrument was NOT fine. OP complained since he received the guitar about paint issues, trem alignment, fretwork, electronics issues, and parts failure since he got the guitar. He was not ignorant to its issues, it doesn't matter if Rusti said the guitar was "perfect" (Which was never proven), those kind of justifications only make him look infinitely worse since HE decided to sell the guitar as "mint".

He did not offer to correct any issues. There were no issues acc. to Rusti Guitars. Just read.

 

[StevenC]

He did not offer to correct any issues. There were no issues acc. to Rusti Guitars. Just read.

Yeah, but when you listed the guitar for sale you described the guitar as mint not "mint according to Rusti".

So you were mislabeling a product you say is faulty as mint.

You didn't mention Rusti's opinion once when you were selling it. Because you cared about getting your money and not whetheryou were scamming people.

 

[DirtyPuma]

Yeah, but when you listed the guitar for sale you described the guitar as mint not "mint according to Rusti".

So you were mislabeling a product you say is faulty as mint.

You didn't mention Rusti's opinion once when you were selling it. Because you cared about getting your money and not whetheryou were scamming people.

Man, get it straight. The guitar was mint. This has nothing to do with the fact that a Rusti Guitar sucks per design. The guitar was nearly the same condition as when I got it (= new). In case any "theoretic" customer asked in more detail or wanted to get a discount / whatever I would be compliant. I sold that guitar at nearly half price when adding the value of the BKP ragnaroks (also mint). Furthermore, I would have had no problem with people just coming over and testing the guitar back then.

Just check Wikipedia in case you're not capable of understanding the term "mint":

[...] Mint condition is an expression used to denote the quality of a pre-owned good as displaying virtually no imperfections and being in pristine condition relative to its original production state. [...]

 

[jaxadam]

34 pages later and now the guitar is mint.

 

[ShredmasterD]

34 pages later and now the guitar is mint.

 

[DirtyPuma]

34 pages later and now the guitar is mint.

Mint means the guitar is in the same condition as it was after production. This term is applied to rate used goods.

A totally different thing is that a guitar that comes out of production from Rusti Guitars sucks as PER DESIGN. The guitar had many issues which were infringing on the service contract between me and Rusti Guitars. The guitar was not what it was supposed to be. Check page 1 for this.

A resale of a guitar is another thing. Acc. to Rusti Guitars I was told that this is how the guitar is supposed to be. It is not what I ordered to have. But it is a good guitar acc. to the maker. They did not see any quality failure here.

Furthermore, there was still the majority of warranty time available. That is also why I did not want to touch anything which would void warranty and tried so many times to have Rusti Guitars acknowledge these issues (setup / string change / pup change do not void warranty, especially not when issues are clearly attributable to production). He only told me: "Well, YOU don't LIKE the guitar? Then sell it, there is nothing wrong which has to be fixed by me."

 

[jaxadam]

Mint means the guitar is in the same condition as it was after production. This term is applied to rate used goods.

A totally different thing is that a guitar that comes out of production from Rusti Guitars sucks as PER DESIGN.

But that's not what it means. If there are flaws in the guitar during production, it is not mint; it has flaws period.

But I'm not the least bit surprised that you would change the definition of mint to suit your needs.

 

[ShredmasterD]

 

[DirtyPuma]

But that's not what it means. If there are flaws in the guitar during production, it is not mint; it has flaws period.

But I'm not the least bit surprised that you would change the definition of mint to suit your needs.

Haha, I even posted the Wikipedia quote and you're still not understanding the term "mint". I guess, all hope is lost for your case.

 

[DirtyPuma]

Yeah, but when you listed the guitar for sale you described the guitar as mint not "mint according to Rusti".

So you were mislabeling a product you say is faulty as mint.

You didn't mention Rusti's opinion once when you were selling it. Because you cared about getting your money and not whetheryou were scamming people.

For sure, I was SCAMMING people when selling the guitar at more or less 60 % of the costs. The guitar was 5 000 € value, the BKPs were roughly 400 € value, makes a total of 5 400 € of goods. These were in nearly the same condition as when I received them. No relevant scratches / marks / nothing.

I sell them for 3 500 €. Scam to make money, I understand.

 

[jaxadam]

Haha, I even posted the Wikipedia quote and you're still not understanding the term "mint". I guess, all hope is lost for your case.

Haha, you did post the wikipedia quote, and it says "...as displaying virtually no imperfections" as per your "wikipedia definition. It's a bummer I don't understand the term mint, to quote the infamous Slipknot, all hope is gone.

No problem buddy, if something shows up riddled with flaws and imperfections, but that's how I got it, it's mint, right?

 

[DirtyPuma]

Haha, you did post the wikipedia quote, and it says "...as displaying virtually no imperfections" as per your "wikipedia definition. It's a bummer I don't understand the term mint, to quote the infamous Slipknot, all hope is gone.

No problem buddy, if something shows up riddled with flaws and imperfections, but that's how I got it, it's mint, right?

Oh my god… nothing to add to this.

The quote says as displaying […] virtually no imperfections […] relative to its original production state.

Since you are not capable of understanding such a basic statement:

The guitar is in a certain state after production. => State 0; This is the state the Rusti Guitars was in when I received it. It was a piece of crap as per page 1 of this thread in my opinion.

I sell the guitar after having had if for some months. => State 1; This is the state after I "played" it for a short time. The guitar was not modified in any relevant way. Setup was done professionally, a selector was swapped (due to malfunction), pickups were changed. That is more or less all. There were no relevant blemished due to use. Functionality was not impaired in any way.

Mint describes now the difference between state 0 and state 1. You hopefully understand now, that the difference between these two states has to be minimal for something to be mint. Since the issues on that Rusti were "during production" this has no impact on rating of used goods.

 

[nickgray]

Mint means the guitar is in the same condition as it was after production

Lol, Puma, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Wanting to weasel out of responsibility is understandable, as is buyer's remorse. Selling cheaper factory instruments and not mentioning flaws is understandable as well, to a certain extent.

But you barge in, post nitpicking pics of tiniest details, go nuts about how the guitar is bad and Rusti is a jackass, and then casually mention that you sold it as mint, and it's a-okay. Bad Puma.

 

[ShredmasterD]

i need more popcorn. be right back

 

[DirtyPuma]

Lol, Puma, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Wanting to weasel out of responsibility is understandable, as is buyer's remorse. Selling cheaper factory instruments and not mentioning flaws is understandable as well, to a certain extent.

But you barge in, post nitpicking pics of tiniest details, go nuts about how the guitar is bad and Rusti is a jackass, and then casually mention that you sold it as mint, and it's a-okay. Bad Puma.

You also don't get the meaning of mint? Also, this review was not about cosmetic details. I only covered them here because they are interesting for anyone thinking about getting a Rusti Guitars, a company whose main advertisement is about how GOOD the guitars LOOK.

Reason I hated the guitar is that it was bad design, bad functionality.

 

[jaxadam]

You also don't get the meaning of mint? Also, this review was not about cosmetic details. I only covered them here because they are interesting for anyone thinking about getting a Rusti Guitars, a company whose main advertisement is about how GOOD the guitars LOOK.

Reason I hated the guitar is that it was bad design, bad functionality.

THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE WRONG! MINT MEANS IT'S GREEN!