Version 1.0 · Effective August 3, 2026
This is how a reported problem gets decided. It's published so that a decision can be checked against a rule rather than taken on trust — and so that two different people reviewing the same evidence reach the same answer.
A problem may be reported:
The window is hard. It runs from the carrier's delivery scan or your own confirmation, and your order page shows the exact expiry.
Missed it and something is genuinely wrong — the wrong ball, undisclosed damage, a counterfeit? Write to us anyway. We'd rather hear about it late than have you charge it back.
The best outcome for everyone is the one where the seller sorts it out with you directly — a refund offered and accepted closes the claim with no fault recorded against anyone.
A claim fails for lack of evidence only when the photos do not show the claimed defect at all. Blurry but visible resolves toward the buyer. If the photos are unclear we may ask once for better ones rather than deciding against you on image quality.
Decisions are made on the listing as it appeared when you bought it, not as it appears now. A seller editing a listing after a sale changes nothing about the claim.
Grades are judged from photographs, mechanically. A reviewer works out the delivered ball's tier using only the markers below, and takes the worst one that clearly applies:
| What's visible in the photos | Tier |
|---|---|
| No visible oil ring; gloss uniform across the ball | A |
| Faint track visible under direct light; no continuous oil ring | B |
| Continuous oil ring, or visibly dulled/matte track band against a glossy shell | C |
| Oil ring plus any of: chip, gouge deeper than a fingernail catch, visible plug, crazing, discoloration from heat | D |
If the photos don't clearly show any marker, the claim resolves in the buyer's favour rather than being denied. Ambiguity is the platform's problem, not the buyer's.
The grade definitions themselves are on the condition guide and they are binding — a seller's chosen grade is a representation, not an impression.
A seller who is repeatedly found at fault loses selling privileges. A buyer who repeatedly files claims that don't hold up, or fabricates evidence, loses the ability to buy. Neither ladder is run by algorithm — a person reviews each one.
Being straight about the gap between this policy and today's product: there is no partial-refund mechanism, no prepaid return label flow, and no formal appeal step. A claim today resolves as a full refund, a release, or a dismissal, and a decision you think is wrong is a conversation with support rather than a process. Those pieces are planned, and this page will change when they land.
If you open a card dispute with your bank, their process replaces ours — we can't issue a refund on an order while a chargeback is open, and their timeline is typically far longer than ours. Reporting the problem here first is almost always faster.
Questions about this page: support@rerackbowling.com. See also the Terms, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimers.