General rule of re-selling. When you walk out the door with it, the resale value drops at least 25%. If I"m going to buy one at near-retail price, why not buy it from the store and be sure - and get the store return policy? If it shows any evidence of use at all, take off another 25% - if I'm buying someone else's used stuff, I expect a bargain. You can always put a high price on an item on Craigslist - you'll get calls offering less pretty quick if it's a popular item. Bargain from there. If it were me, I'd figure that my $350 was long gone, so I'd price it to sell, then add 10% just because. If you price it too high for the market, you can always re-list it. The problem there is that buyers might expect you to keep dropping the price. Good luck.

If an ad says "asking 350," I would offer less, unless it was just a really, really good deal at 350.

I agree, with above posters. You can try that "Parsons Chair" first, but in my mind, that person wants more because they know their chair has a real name.....it's the unsuspecting lister, who calls it a "chair" that will be practically giving it away. I have someone who is selling those faux bamboo aluminum chairs and table, she is calling them "ASAIN patio furniture". Not a typo. She even types it in her txt messages that way. So, if I was looking for "Asian" chairs (not that these are anyway) I wouldn't have found them. She is currently down to $85 for the set, when she hits $50, I will ring her again. Another case: My brand new Henry Link Bali Hai bedroom set that was listed for $100 was listed as "5 Piece French Pruvential Style Bedroom Set". So, you have to assume there are typos, and people who don't have a clue what they have. Good Luck. Look daily, and often. The best stuff goes quickly. As Victoria Elizabeth would advise you, don't ask too many questions, just get there and then decide!

Actually, I did read your link. That's what prompted my post. 'Intended for' caught my interest. SLS is a detergent. That's its 'intended' purpose. The package should probably say no 'toxic or hazardous' pesticides or chemicals. But that is what they mean. I think it's safe to take the label at face value in that it doesn't contain any known offenders. I would like to know more about the properties of the SLS and acetic acid they use. Appears you can pretty much eat everything on the list (if its in the proper form and dilute enough). It also appears they are ingredients we're already exposed to extensively in the marketplace. But I'm not a chemist and we don't know the concentrations. Its pesticidal use is also in the form of shampoos/cleaners. I guess in higher concentrations than usual? They are intended to clean and also repel from what I see. I'm not going to dig up the sites I was looking through before, but have linked some interesting ones below for anyone who's interested. Snopes has an interesting article (linked below). Note the paragraph on OSHA's requirements for all hazardous chemicals produced in the U.S. and for their end-use products. Three agencies cleared SLS as non-carcinogenic (OSHA, Toxicology, Cancer). Another interesting document (looks to be from 1993): EPA - Re-Registration for Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (used in only one registered pesticide product, a pet shampoo, at the time). http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/4061fact.pdf Scorecard. This is the pet shampoo product on the RED document above: http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/product.tcl?reg_nr=06006600001â_name=DR.%20DOGKATZ'S%20CRITTER%20CHASER%20SHAMPOO Dr. Weil on SLS: http://web.archive.org/web/20040714081534/http://www.drweil.com/drw/app/cda/drw_cda.php?command=TodayQA&pt=Question&questionId=3513 .gov - SLS Exemption from the Requirement of Tolerance (referring to residue levels) http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2009/08/12/E9-19314/sodium-lauryl-sulfate-exemption-from-the-requirement-of-a-tolerance#p-3 There's certainly some controversy over SLS so I'll probably read more about it and look for shampoos and such without it. Still, I wouldn't hesitate to use the Fairytale product if it seemed to work. We're continually bombarded with so much harmful stuff daily. It seems like a fairly innocuous product. Here is a link that might be useful: Snopes References