# to soapstone or not to soapstone, that is the question



## qwerty (Sep 19, 2007)

I have absolutely no experience with stoves, but am looking to get into the game.  I am going to purchase a wood burning fireplace insert for my existing masonry fireplace/chimney.  I am new to this forum, but have been reading other's posts and feel as though I have learned a lot.  By combining some shopping around at dealers with gleaning information on this site, I've narrowed down what seemed like an overwhelming number of options to a manageable few. 

There is one thing, however, that requires a bit more info to clarify:  I am aware of the alleged benefits of soapstone; it's dense and durable and is said to absorb heat slowly and evenly and then release it for a longer period of time after.  I've heard that this moderates the heat output, making it less intense while the fire burns and then returning the heat when the fire dies down.

This all sounds good.  I wonder, then, why it is not used by more manufacturers.  The only model that meets my needs, and is available from a dealer that (I think) I like, and that also uses soapstone is the Hearthstone Clydesdale.   The problem is that I do not prefer the aesthetics of this insert.  I am willing to tolerate the appearance of the Clydesdale if the benefits of soapstone over firebrick are pronounced enough to warrant the sacrifice.  

So, what's the call here?

Thanks.

PS - The other models that I am really giving a look at are the Lopi Revere and Freedom.


----------



## elkimmeg (Sep 19, 2007)

there is another way to extend a heat range output thermostatically controlled air.


----------



## jpl1nh (Sep 19, 2007)

I debated soapstone vs cast iron and went back and forth. Personally, I loved the appearance of the Woodstock soap stone stoves plus their off the chart approval ratings. I was heating with an older pre-EPA Jotul steel stove. I really liked that I could get heat from it in about 15 minutes and it did a great job of heating our home. Because I found a great deal on a Woodstock stove on Craigslist, I snapped it up and have just started to use it. I do not think soap stone is the end all/be all of stoves. It's different. It takes a while to heat up from a cold start, 45 mins or so, it continues to give of heat for several hours after the fire is pretty much done. It's heating style is gentler and much more even than the steel stove I had which cranked heat or produced little. The soapstone just gradually and steadily warms, very nice! Appearance is important and you should feel good about what you choose. I don't have lots of experience with all sorts of stoves and inserts but, like you, I've read a lot. I believe you will find many inserts that you would be glad you purchased, the characteristics will vary somewhat. Choose something you like the appearance of, that is well rated. You most likely will get what you pay for, so buy with quality in mind if you can afford it. As for soapstone, I can tell you already in just a few fires, I'm very glad I went that direction. That's just my opinion. Do the benefits warrant the appearance sacrifice???? I would have a hard time arguing they are decidedly better. They offer heat in a somewhat different form. I will say this though. Anyone I have ever talked to who has lived with a soapstone stove, old stoves, new stoves, whatever, has always loved their unique heat.


----------



## 11 Bravo (Sep 19, 2007)

If ya don't like the looks of it, I think you'll be kicking yourself if you get it. Doesn't matter if it's a stove or anything else you are going to dump some $$$ on.....


----------



## colsmith (Sep 19, 2007)

Although we love our Hearthstone stove w/soapstone, if you don't like how it looks maybe it isn't for you.  We think our stove is very attractive, we have a Phoenix.  Once you have a stove, you wind up staring at it a lot while burning, just because fire is so hypnotic, and it is so cozy near the stove.  So it is important that you like looking at it.  Also, if you have a masonry fireplace and chimney, probably that would have some heat retaining qualities similar to soapstone.   So although I would recommend Hearthstone, really it depends what you would like.  Read more and think hard.  The reason everybody doesn't jump on the soapstone bandwagon is mainly because soapstone stoves are more expensive than most cast iron or steel stoves.


----------



## Todd (Sep 19, 2007)

Go for the looks. You will have to look at it every day, might as well like it. Those so called soapstone inserts aren't true soapstone stoves, they just have soapstone firebricks inside a double wall steel or iron box. So my opinion is you wouldn't get the benefit from soapstone as much as you would from a free standing soapstone stove. Maybe some, but not enough to spend big $$ for something you don't like the looks of.


----------



## Gooserider (Sep 19, 2007)

Soapstone is a construction technique that pretty much only gives good results if you plan on being a consistent "24/7" burner - because of the long delay between building a fire and getting useful heat, the key to success is to get it hot and keep it that way all season.

The other factor is that an insert derives less benefit from soapstone.  The big thing that soapstone does is provide thermal mass, and to a large extent your masonry fireplace will do that just as well.

To me the bottom line is that I would worry less about the material the stove is made from, and more about choosing something you like the looks of.  You will get similar amounts of heat out of any unit with a similar size firebox, so really the material is secondary.

Gooserider


----------



## qwerty (Sep 19, 2007)

Good points - exactly the kind of feedback that I was looking for.  I think that an important point that was mentioned is that a soapstone insert is not the same as a freestanding stove.  The soapstone is just the lining, constituting less of the mass of the unit and not being directly exposed to the room/house that is being heated.  I can see where this would serve to diminish its impact.

It's a shame about the Hearthstone inserts (Morgan and Clydesdale).  They seem like nice units and are not really much different in price to similarly sized models from other companies, but they are just so "industrial" looking.   No decorative pattern on the surround, no option for brass or pewter accents - just a big cube of black metal.   Why not jazz them up a little?

From the other perspective, why don't other companies just throw some soapstone bricks into their inserts or even offer them as on option?  I've never heard anybody say that soapstone isn't at least as good as regular firebrick, so wouldn't this be a desirable selling point?  Am I missing something?


----------



## Cath (Sep 19, 2007)

I don't pretend to be an expert on these things but I would have bought the smaller version of the Clydesdale, which is the Morgan, if I could easily have afforded it.  

I do agree that because it is an insert --as opposed to a free standing stove-- you lose some of the benefit of the radiant heat since a good amount of it is radiating into the chimney.  However, similarly some of the convection heat of a non soapstone is lost to the chimney as well.  

The Hearthstone inserts do have blowers on the side but according to one senior member, Rhonemas, to realize the benefit of these blowers you shouldn't install the stove flush but rather have it sitting about 5 inches out, which encroaches on the room a little and arguably creates an aesthetics problem.  

Which brings me to your observation about the appearance of the Clydesdale and the Morgan.  When I first started thinking about inserts several years ago this wasn't the look that I favored either.  However, I've come to appreciate the way that form follows function in these particular units.  It is an understated modern look as opposed to a fussier decorative look.  That's not to say that you can't find something in the middle but arguably Clydesdale's and Morgan's are simply  show cases for the main attraction, the fire itself.  Especially in the Clydesdale; if memory serves correctly this has one of the biggest viewing windows for an insert.

Another way of looking at it is that Hearthstone seems to approach insert styling the way high end manufacturers design kitchen appliances.  That is to say that they are sleek and functional but don't call undo attention to themselves.

Of course, personal preference, and possibly the overall style of the room, are pretty important when considering aesthetics.  on the other hand, if you have a closed floor plan you may want to think about whether convection heat would blast you out of the room or not.

I would encourage you to do a key word search on "Clydesdale" on this site to learn more about this stove before you rule it out.  In particular, look for anything Rhonemas has written.  I believe he has had his for two winters now.  

Good luck with your decision.
~Cath


----------



## thephotohound (Sep 19, 2007)

qwerty said:
			
		

> From the other perspective, why don't other companies just throw some soapstone bricks into their inserts or even offer them as on option?  I've never heard anybody say that soapstone isn't at least as good as regular firebrick, so wouldn't this be a desirable selling point?  Am I missing something?



Yes, you are missing something....    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Soapstone is a much more expensive product!


----------



## MrGriz (Sep 19, 2007)

I would have to agree that soapstone construction will deliver much more benefit in a stove rather than an insert. With an insert, the stored heat is effectively trapped inside the fireplace with the insert. Yes, the blower will circulate that heat even when the fire is out, but will also cool the insert more quickly. When you look at this, combined with the fact that it takes longer to produce heat when first lit, they seem to offset each other.

I'm certainly not knocking soapstone, especially in a free standing stove I think it's beautiful and has some great heating qualities. You have it narrowed down to some very good choices. At this point, I would suggest going with the one that you find the most aesthetically pleasing.  As Marcia pointed out, you will find yourself spending a lot of time gazing  at the fire.


----------



## qwerty (Sep 19, 2007)

Yes, you are missing something....    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Soapstone is a much more expensive product![/quote]

It could still be offered as an option, if cost is a consideration.  In any case, I have not found the price between Hearthstone and other comparable brands to be that far apart with regard to inserts.   In the case of a stove, there may be a greater difference because the manufacturing process becomes more complex.  With an insert, it is just a matter of the bricks lining the inside being of a different material.


----------



## Gooserider (Sep 20, 2007)

qwerty said:
			
		

> Yes, you are missing something....    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Soapstone is a much more expensive product!



It could still be offered as an option, if cost is a consideration.  In any case, I have not found the price between Hearthstone and other comparable brands to be that far apart with regard to inserts.   In the case of a stove, there may be a greater difference because the manufacturing process becomes more complex.  With an insert, it is just a matter of the bricks lining the inside being of a different material.[/quote]

The problem with offering it as an option is that the mfgr would have to get the stove retested and certified for use with the soapstone instead of the firebrick - It might not work since the two materials aren't the same, and even if it did, the test cycle costs on the order of $10K / per - you would have to sell an awful lot of soapstone to pay for that test.

Gooserider


----------

