# Jotul Oslo Vs. Hearthstone Heritage.



## Halligan (Mar 1, 2012)

As some of you know from my few previous post's I'm looking to install a woodstove in my home. I was pretty sure the F500 Oslo was going to be my stove until I brought the wife with me to look at them. Right away she gravitated toward the Hearthstone Heritage. When I started researching stoves I didn't bother with soapstone due to the cost. However, the wife liked the elegant look of soapstone enought to justify spending the additional money. All of my research was geared toward Jotul and I fully comprehend how nice the Oslo is but now I have to decide between the Oslo or the Heritage. The wife wants the Heritage I want whatever is the better stove. Any suggestions are welcome and FWIW I will using the search feature as well.


----------



## Todd (Mar 1, 2012)

Measure the fire boxes, I'm pretty sure the Oslo is bigger and will put out more heat but it all depends on your needs and how much space your trying to heat.

If she really likes the soapstone look take a look Woodstock as well, can't beat the sale they have going on.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 1, 2012)

Halligan said:
			
		

> As some of you know from my few previous post's I'm looking to install a woodstove in my home. I was pretty sure the F500 Oslo was going to be my stove until I brought the wife with me to look at them. Right away she gravitated toward the Hearthstone Heritage. When I started researching stoves I didn't bother with soapstone due to the cost. However, the wife liked the elegant look of soapstone enought to justify spending the additional money. All of my research was geared toward Jotul and I fully comprehend how nice the Oslo is but now I have to decide between the Oslo or the Heritage. The wife wants the Heritage I want whatever is the better stove. Any suggestions are welcome and FWIW I will using the search feature as well.



The Heritage is a smaller stove.

The Oslo will provide more heat and longer burn times. If you want to go with a Hearthstone, the Mansfield is a more comparable model to the Oslo.

Another soapstone model to look at is the Woodstock Fireview. It is larger than the Heritage, but just a little smaller than the Oslo. The Fireview will have longer burn times than the Heritage and equal to longer burn times when compared to the Oslo.

There is a poster here that is running an Oslo and a Fireview. He will be able to tell you how well they compare.


----------



## Todd (Mar 1, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:
			
		

> Halligan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great minds think a like!


----------



## DAKSY (Mar 1, 2012)

Which is the better stove?

Jotul started making woodstoves in 1853...

Hearthstone started about 1979...

Case closed.


----------



## Highbeam (Mar 1, 2012)

The heritage does look nice and presents a very nice view of the fire through its large window. Jotul makes nice stoves too. Isn't the F500 a big stove? The heritage is only 2.3 CF so you'll need to figure out what size of stove you need. The largest hearthstone, the equinox, looks just like the heritage only about 2x the size. Scaled up. 

How big of a firebox do you need? 

Either brand makes a fine stove. I don't automatically think the older company makes a better product. Just look at VC, an old company that turns out some of the crappiest products out there.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 1, 2012)

Highbeam said:
			
		

> The heritage does look nice and presents a very nice view of the fire through its large window. Jotul makes nice stoves too. Isn't the F500 a big stove? The heritage is only 2.3 CF so you'll need to figure out what size of stove you need. The largest hearthstone, the equinox, looks just like the heritage only about 2x the size. Scaled up.



Keep in mind, not all fireboxes are created equally. The Heritage is listed as 2.3, but it's usable space is much smaller. I would say the Heritage is about the same size the Keystone in terms of how much wood you can load into the stove. The Heritage and Encore are listed as having the same size, but the Encore is clearly larger and can fit more wood. The Oslo is suppose to be 2.5 cu ft. If it has a more usable firebox it should be at least as large as the Encore firebox.




> Just look at VC, an old company that turns out some of the crappiest products out there.



You've insulted one or more of the many stoves I have owned, I am now outraged. Outraged, I say!


----------



## Halligan (Mar 2, 2012)

Thanks for the replies. I think either stove will heat my home. My house is a modern 1600sf cape with an open floor plan on the first floor. According to the brochures the Jotul Oslo has a 2.54ft firebox while the Heritage is 2.3ft. The Oslo puts out 70,000BTU/hr while the Heritage is 55,000BTU/hr. Oslo has up to a 9hr burn time, Heritage is 8hr burn time with 12hr heat life. Jotul claims the Oslo can heat up to 2,000sq.ft while the Heritage is 1,900sq.ft. Clearences are all close and not an issue. Bottom line is I like the dealer and he sells both. The soapstone Heritage will be almost $1,000 more but the wife likes it which is fine. I just don't want to buy a stove, find out it's a P.O.S, and have buyers remorse.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 2, 2012)

Halligan said:
			
		

> Thanks for the replies. I think either stove will heat my home. My house is a modern 1600sf cape with an open floor plan on the first floor. According to the brochures the Jotul Oslo has a 2.54ft firebox while the Heritage is 2.3ft. *The Oslo puts out 70,000BTU/hr while the Heritage is 55,000BTU/hr. Oslo has up to a 9hr burn time, Heritage is 8hr burn time with 12hr heat life. Jotul claims the Oslo can heat up to 2,000sq.ft while the Heritage is 1,900sq.ft.* Clearences are all close and not an issue. Bottom line is I like the dealer and he sells both. The soapstone Heritage will be almost $1,000 more but the wife likes it which is fine. I just don't want to buy a stove, find out it's a P.O.S, and have buyers remorse.




Ignore everything in the large bold type. It is mostly marketing fluff. Focus on firebox size and see the stoves in person.

If you have good insulation, good windows, and a tight house, the Heritage should work. If this were me, I would go with the Mansfield or the Oslo for the convenience.


----------



## Halligan (Mar 2, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:
			
		

> Halligan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for your reply. My house is insulated well with decent windows. I do believe either will provide sufficient heat for my needs. My hang up is the fact that all I've read has indicated the Oslo is a great stove with a strong, dedicated following. What I don't want to do is buy an expensive, fancy looking soapstone stove and have a bunch of issues. BTW, I will not soley be heating with wood unless needed due to natural disaster or loss of power. I'm more of the supplement my gas heat kind of guy.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 2, 2012)

Halligan said:
			
		

> BrowningBAR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You should be just fine, then. The Heritage likes dry wood or you will have a very tough time getting the stove over 400 degrees. You should buy your wood now and, if possible, buy two years worth.


----------



## PLAYS WITH FIRE (Mar 2, 2012)

It sound like you want to spend your money wisely....These folks are wise! You will be happy with both no doubt as they are both beautiful and very capable heaters. If I was able to get the most for my money I would. Believe me, you will have the intentions of supplementing your NG but the caveman will come out and you want to keep you family warm! The bigger burner will help you do that better.

Bigger in this case is better and cheaper too....


----------



## jrendfrey (Mar 2, 2012)

me and my wife had a steel woodstove in our old house man that thing really cranked some heat but we would wake up seeing our breath which was well....uncomfortable to say the least. we bought a used hearthstone not the small one but not the mansfield and i telll you what we had overnight burns everytime but the stove didnt get nearly as hot as the steel one but last for 12 hrs of heat which is very nice and consumed 1/3 the wood. with a tight house i would look into soapstone but dont be expecting 600 degree stove top its a much more even long lasting heat which i feel is much more worth it.


----------



## Halligan (Mar 2, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:
			
		

> Halligan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not to get off topic but I've been scrounging my wood since last august. I have 2 cord of silver maple C/S/S and 1 cord red oak C/S/S already. Maple will be for the 12/13 season and I'll hold off on oak until 13/14 season. I am scrounging all the time and hope to build up 3-4 years worth. If needed i'll buy wood but prefer not to. At best I'll get a log load and buck and split myself.

Thanks again.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 2, 2012)

jrendfrey said:
			
		

> me and my wife had a steel woodstove in our old house man that thing really cranked some heat but we would wake up seeing our breath which was well....uncomfortable to say the least. we bought a used hearthstone not the small one but not the mansfield and i telll you what we had overnight burns everytime but the stove didnt get nearly as hot as the steel one but last for 12 hrs of heat which is very nice and consumed 1/3 the wood. with a tight house i would look into soapstone but *dont be expecting 600 degree stove top* its a much more even long lasting heat which i feel is much more worth it.



I politely disagree:
https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/83823/


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 2, 2012)

Halligan said:
			
		

> BrowningBAR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Estimate 3-4 cords for the first year. Could it be less? Sure. But 3-4 cords should be enough no matter the weather and how much you use the stove.


----------



## Halligan (Mar 2, 2012)

While I've been researching these stoves I've decided people should post what kind of house they're heating with they're stove. Think about it, we advertise our stove, splitter, truck and chainsaw in our sig's but not what kind of house is being heated. For me being a newbie it would be helpful to know whether a guy is trying to heat a 2,800sf McMansion or a 1,200sf ranch with a particular stove. I will start by changing my sig.


----------



## Dougiefreshhh (Mar 2, 2012)

Hi There.  

I went thru the same dilemma back in Nov.  

I supplement my gas heat with our wood stove.  

Previously had a VC Resolute...but 30 years took it's toll.  

Like my old VC, I wanted something solid, traditional, and with as few moving parts (read easy for wife and teenager to operate). 

I ended up with the Jotul f500.  

I've put about a cord thru her so far, and it's great...especially the side load door.

My mrs liked the jotul better...and I was keeping my fingers crossed that she would....so that worked out good for me. 

Let's us know what you decide.  


BTW - im a fellow ram 2500 Hemi owner.  Show us what ya got!


----------



## Halligan (Mar 2, 2012)

Heres my truck. The picture on the right is factory suspension with 285 tires. Picture on the left is after I installed a Carli Suspension System. it's basically a 3" lift. Now I just need bigger tires.


----------



## Dougiefreshhh (Mar 2, 2012)

Nice!   Laramie, right?

I don't have a pic, but I have since attached some mopar 3 pad oval step bars. 

They are fun trucks...and when that Hemi hits 5500rpm.....it's music!


----------



## Halligan (Mar 2, 2012)

A Laramie she is.


----------



## ddddddden (Mar 2, 2012)

Yeah, soapstone = babe magnet.   . . . and anyone interested in a stone stove would be wise to give Woodstock due consideration.  Mail order is a bit more complicated than handing a check to a dealer, but the ~ $1k you save should easily pay someone to do the install. . .probably cover a good portion of the chimney cost too.  Tell us more about your idea of supplemental heating.  If you just want to fire it up occasionally and get heat ASAP, you might like a metal stove better.  Soapstone does hold heat longer/more than iron or steel (g00gle "specific heat" to get into the physics), but you have to pay the piper on a cold start and wait longer for the stone to throw heat, so stone stoves are at their best running 24/7, IMO.  It sounds like you have the wood acquisition thing goin' on, so why not burn 24/7. . .most folks here find that the easiest way to do it, weather permitting.  Regarding firebox capacity, the Oslo's spec may be larger, but you would need 22" logs to really take advantage of it.


----------



## logger (Mar 2, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:
			
		

> Halligan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Id estimate 5 cords to be safe, as last winter I burned through at least 4 1/2 cords with the weather we had.  That was burning 24/7.  I've seen others burn through the same or more on the forum some winters.


----------



## Fsappo (Mar 2, 2012)

As someone who has burned both in my showroom and has sold many of each I would say Oslo, hands down as a better burning stove.  When I was a Jotul dealer, the Oslo was the stove we thought of as "Just sell them an Oslo, that way we know they will be happy" stove.

I love the Hearthstones, the even heat, the style, etc.  But in the Hearthstone line the Mansfield is the stove I sell if I want the best chance of a 100% happy customer.

Daksy just says older is better because he is a grey bearded gas wizard.


----------



## DAKSY (Mar 2, 2012)

Franks said:
			
		

> Daksy just says older is better because he is a grey bearded gas wizard.



*BUSTED!*


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 2, 2012)

logger said:
			
		

> BrowningBAR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, but he's leaning towards the Heritage. 3-4 cords is about right for the heritage.


----------



## rhetta (Mar 2, 2012)

Late last winter my husband and I faced a similar situation. After transforming a three season porch into a year round room we found the Castine to be a little "under powered " for the xtra sq. footage of app. 300 sq. ft.  Because the Jotul had served us well for six burning seasons my husband was set on the Oslo but I was partial to the soapstone purely based on aesthetics not so much performance.  I won out after some serious discussion . Our home is an open floor plan with loft total sq. ft. of 1560 , lots of glass and well insulated six inch walls in northern Minnesota...cold climate usually...not so this year. I am mostly a passive wood burner..better 1/2 does the fire tending 90% of the time ...but I can tell you the Heritage does heat our abode easily for the most part. We like it cruising at 400 t0 450 degrees but it will climb above that when our temps dip into the minus 20 degree temps as well. This winter has been very moderate temp wise and now with overnite lows  in the low 20s we get by with  half loadsof red oak for over night burns...load at 10:30 and again at 7a.m.  I do think the stone stoves are better suited for 24/7 since you can maintain the heat better. Right now our temp on the stove is at 325 with the outside temp at 28 deg. and at 72 on an outer wall at the far end of our kitchen..open to the stove room. In below zero temps we do reload once during the night. I'm not going to lay claim to over night burns during the very harsh conditions but the stone does retain heat much longer than other stoves would.  We recently had our propane tank filled and used just 96 gallons from an August 18th fill most of that for hot water. I'm certain the Oslo is a very good stove..price wise ...we spent 2800 for the stone in matte black the Oslo in an enamel finish was a bit less but not a thousand difference. Maybe some other soapers will chime in on this my husband says the Heritage performance is really dictated by atmospheric conditions..automatically burns hotter under high pressure and  is mellower in low pressure conditions. Well  that's my two cents worth ..oh and my husband has never said "should of bought the Oslo" albeit they are a good stove as well.


----------



## DanCorcoran (Mar 2, 2012)

Since no one has indicated that there is a significant difference, or that there is anything wrong with the Hearthstone, the better stove is the one that your wife will be happier with.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 2, 2012)

DanCorcoran said:
			
		

> Since no one has indicated that there is a significant difference, or that there is anything wrong with the Hearthstone, the better stove is the one that your wife will be happier with.



Nothing is wrong with the Hearthstone, but, they are two different stoves. One produces more heat and longer burn times. As I mentioned previously, the Mansfield is more of a direct comparison.

The Castine and Heritage would be more of a direct comparison. And when you compare it that way, the price difference is even greater. 

When one stove will easily burn overnight and the other stove will not (depending upon your heating needs), that needs to be factored in to the "because the wife will be happy" since you can be pretty sure that she isn't going to be the one that gets up at 2-4am to throw a few splits in the stove.


----------



## yaker57 (Mar 2, 2012)

Probably Administrator Spank Me again, but Twice I have Posted about My Oslo, each time as I added My 2 Cents worth was told to Start a New Thread, that's fine but I see Now They are OK to Post photos of Guys Trucks????  Man I just knew those Guys were gonna get Spanked as well but.....No Problem By Me , just to bad they must be Buddies of theirs, cause last I checked this Aint No Truck Forum My Applogizes to Truck Guys , Sweet Rides, just trying figure were (They) draw the Line I would like to Post photos of My Kayaks But...... I do enjoy the site just dont need to be Spanked Have a Great Day


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 2, 2012)

yaker57 said:
			
		

> Probably Administrator Spank Me again, but Twice I have Posted about My Oslo, each time as I added My 2 Cents worth was told to Start a New Thread, that's fine but I see Now They are OK to Post photos of Guys Trucks????  Man I just knew those Guys were gonna get Spanked as well but.....No Problem By Me , just to bad they must be Buddies of theirs, cause last I checked this Aint No Truck Forum My Applogizes to Truck Guys , Sweet Rides, just trying figure were (They) draw the Line I would like to Post photos of My Kayaks But...... I do enjoy the site just dont need to be Spanked Have a Great Day




You weren't 'spanked.' You brought up legitimate problems you were having with your stove. BeGreen asked you to start a new thread so your issues could be the focus of the thread and discussed.


----------



## Dougiefreshhh (Mar 2, 2012)

Nice lift on your truck!

Here is mine with the 3 pad step bars....near where I like to burn wood the "other way".

I see you are in RI.  

We camp at Burlingame a lot...love those RI beaches!







Regarding the stove...Let us know what you decide.  I agree that one stove might be better than the other...but I don't think so much so that your wife has to be unhappy with its looks.


----------



## logger (Mar 2, 2012)

Aint there a truck forum for that there stuff.


----------



## yaker57 (Mar 2, 2012)

Ya Evidently right Here


----------



## Pallet Pete (Mar 2, 2012)

DanCorcoran said:
			
		

> Since no one has indicated that there is a significant difference, or that there is anything wrong with the Hearthstone, the better stove is the one that your wife will be happier with.



haha +1 My wife eventually had to kick me in the fanny and said go with Jotul !! I do not regret it at all. I have never owned a better stove it lights quick holds heat forever and starts from almost no coals! We still have a few quirks to get out of our setup but overall it rocks this house  :lol: 

Pete


----------



## Dougiefreshhh (Mar 2, 2012)

My last pic had wood burning in it!  
Sorry....got off topic. 
Did I mention my wife loves our Jotul 500?


----------



## Dakotas Dad (Mar 2, 2012)

My sister has an Oslo, seems like a great burning stove, keeps her 1600sqft ranch toasty. But dang it's ugly.


----------



## Blue Vomit (Mar 2, 2012)

Dakotas Dad said:
			
		

> My sister has an Oslo, seems like a great burning stove, keeps her 1600sqft ranch toasty. But dang it's ugly.



blasphemy!


----------



## Butcher (Mar 2, 2012)

Dakotas Dad said:
			
		

> My sister has an Oslo, seems like a great burning stove, keeps her 1600sqft ranch toasty. But dang it's ugly.



Best hope yer sister dont read this. The ugly comment could be misunderstood?


----------



## Halligan (Mar 3, 2012)

Thanks for the replies gentleman. Sorry about the slight deviation from the threads topic with the truck pictures and your right they don't belong here. Anyway, I guess I will need to sleep on this some more. If anyone has more to add post it up.


----------



## Halligan (Mar 4, 2012)

Well after sleeping on it a couple nights, searching this forum, reading this thread a few times, and talking it over with the wife I feel the Oslo is the better stove for me. Yes soapstone stoves are elegant. But I feel the Oslo is a reliable work horse while the Heritage is attractive but not as durable. I will be holding off on the purchase for another month or so but the Oslo is back in the lead.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 4, 2012)

Halligan said:
			
		

> Well after sleeping on it a couple nights, searching this forum, reading this thread a few times, and talking it over with the wife I feel the Oslo is the better stove for me. Yes soapstone stoves are elegant. But I feel the Oslo is a reliable work horse while the Heritage is attractive but not as durable. I will be holding off on the purchase for another month or so but the Oslo is back in the lead.




As a Heritage owner, I think you made the right choice. I think the Heritage is reliable, but the Oslo is easier to operate, warms up faster, and will require fewer reloads. Also, it is a little over-sized for your house which makes it perfect since you can stretch out the burns even longer and it offers more flexibility.


----------



## Dougiefreshhh (Mar 4, 2012)

i forgot to mention that one of the other reasons i went with cast iron is that a friend of mine had a soapstone stove.  Like others, he too said they are pretty...but after 5 years, the stone cracked in two places.  Plus he told me that if you want to cook on the stone, you have to be VERY careful as the soapstone is soft and scratches easily.

Glad to hear you made a decision.  Post some pics once its installed....AND after you get those wheels and tires for that Hemi!


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 4, 2012)

CT Burner said:
			
		

> i forgot to mention that one of the other reasons i went with cast iron is that a friend of mine had a soapstone stove.  Like others, he too said they are pretty...but after 5 years, the stone cracked in two places.  Plus he told me that if you want to cook on the stone, you have to be VERY careful as the soapstone is soft and scratches easily.
> 
> Glad to hear you made a decision.  Post some pics once its installed....AND after you get those wheels and tires for that Hemi!



Mine was made around 2005. That's 7 years. No cracks. Most Woodstock owners report no cracks as well. 

I find the soapstone to be no less durable than any of the enamel finishes that are out there.

I also have a friend that warped and cracked his Oslo. That is not indicative of all Oslos. But it does show how poorly my friend uses and operates his stove.


----------



## ddddddden (Mar 4, 2012)

An iron panel may be more rugged than a stone panel, but a stove of either material is put together in the same way, with cement and gaskets, which will need to be replaced eventually (10-20 years.)  Woodstocks have double walls with an air gap to prevent hot spots, so I'm not really worried about a stone cracking before it's time to rebuild the stove.  If you really want to go for durability, look at the Jotul F50 Rangeley / F55 Carrabasset.  Welded steel firebox with cast iron side panels to dress it up a bit.  Not as pretty as the Oslo, but no joints to worry about rebuilding.  Pacific Energy T5 would be another good pick made in the same way, as is the new Woodstock Progress, with soapstone panels on a steel firebox. . .currently in beta testing, but probably ready for prime time next season.


----------



## neumsky (Mar 4, 2012)

@ Daksey above...Ya...I thought that was kinda funny...longevity is the reason why you own a Harman haha...But you are a very very smart man...You have a BGE! They are the greatest


----------



## Rob From Wisconsin (Mar 5, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:
			
		

> Halligan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've got to chime-in here, being that I was Oslo, but now am a Hearthstone owner. I would say the whole concept of longer burn times
with the Oslo vs. the Heritage is not true. I was lucky to get 3-4 hour burns on the Olso, and it got "cold" pretty fast after that.
At least with a soapstone stove it will retain a fair amount of heat to induce a draft on reload.

In summary, I would say the burn times between the units is a "washout". What sold me was the heat retention,
and what sold my wife was the "looks" of our Heathstone.


----------



## Oldhippie (Mar 5, 2012)

Halligan said:
			
		

> BrowningBAR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've heard that before...


----------



## ddddddden (Mar 5, 2012)

Go Rob!  You are kickin' butt on technique if the Tribute is taking care of business the same as or better than another EPA stove ~ twice its size did.         +1 on the heat retention of soapstone.  The "usefulness" of this in terms of output has been the subject of some debate, but I just think it's cool to come back 18 or 20 hours after loading and find a warm stove. Our old insert was pre-EPA.  Maybe ~ 6 hour burn on a good day and cool to the touch an hour or two later.  It was steel, lined with firebrick, and weiged probably about the same as our stone stove, ~ 500lbs. The stone has some mojo that can't be dismissed as thermal mass, IMO.    Also, I frequently find hot coals for restarting after 18 hours, but I won't claim that as a "burn time". . .I'll leave that for the BK guys.


----------



## logger (Mar 5, 2012)

Rob From Wisconsin,

3-4 hr burns on the Oslo and you didnt think something was amiss?  That just aint right.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 5, 2012)

Den said:
			
		

> Go Rob!  You are kickin' butt on technique if the Tribute is taking care of business the same as or better than another EPA stove ~ twice its size did.         +1 on the heat retention of soapstone.  The "usefulness" of this in terms of output has been the subject of some debate, but I just think it's cool to come back 18 or 20 hours after loading and find a warm stove. *Our old insert was pre-EPA.  Maybe ~ 6 hour burn on a good day and cool to the touch an hour or two later.  *It was steel, lined with firebrick, and weiged probably about the same as our stone stove, ~ 500lbs. The stone has some mojo that can't be dismissed as thermal mass, IMO.    Also, I frequently find hot coals for restarting after 18 hours, but I won't claim that as a "burn time". . .I'll leave that for the BK guys.




That is roughly what you can expect from a Heritage.


----------



## Rob From Wisconsin (Mar 5, 2012)

logger said:
			
		

> Rob From Wisconsin,
> 
> 3-4 hr burns on the Oslo and you didnt think something was amiss?  That just aint right.



I did the Oslo "upgrade" strickly with the hope of longer burn times.
For me, it underperformed my expectations.
Replaced it with a $300 Menard's EPA stove, which exceeded my expectations.

It was scary - the little, cheap stove did the job better.
We have since moved to a different house with a different stove.


----------



## ddddddden (Mar 5, 2012)

Ah, so the Tribute is in a different house?  Well, I still say you are kickin' butt if you are getting it done with a 1.2-cu-ft stove.    I do agree that 4 hours sounds a lil' short for an Oslo though. . .short for any 2+ cu-ft EPA stove, really.  It seems like most Ozzies report ~ 8 hours.  I guess some of the discrepancy is due to varying definitions of "burn time." My stove will hold coals for about a day, but so will an ash bucket.         (I've taken to running a very deep ash bed.)


----------



## ddddddden (Mar 5, 2012)

BAR,  I guess I can believe a 6-hour burn for the Heritage, since it's non-cat, and either you or Highbeam has said that it's box is smaller than a Fireview's (1.8 cu ft usable), but if you're saying that it would be cool to the touch @ 8 hours, I'm really surprised to hear that.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 5, 2012)

Den said:
			
		

> BAR,  I guess I can believe a 6-hour burn for the Heritage, since it's non-cat, and either you or Highbeam has said that it's box is smaller than a Fireview's (1.8 cu ft usable), but if you're saying that it would be cool to the touch @ 8 hours, I'm really surprised to hear that.



'Stone' cold? No. But a stove that is cool enough to the touch is not putting out any heat. After 8 hours you are below 150 degrees. Which isn't worth a hell of a lot and is not much different than a cast iron stove.


----------



## ddddddden (Mar 5, 2012)

Ah, the ol' "useful output" debate.    I dunno how much it's worth. . .I just like it when my stove stays warm and waits patiently for me to come and stoke it, rather than going cold after the fire is gone.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 5, 2012)

Den said:
			
		

> Ah, the ol' "useful output" debate.    I dunno how much it's worth. . .I just like it when my stove stays warm and waits patiently for me to come and stoke it, rather than going cold after the fire is gone.



I don't know of anyone that would consider 100-140 degrees useful. Starting up a soapstone at sub-150 degree temps is pretty much a cold start. I don't care if it can sit at that temp for 20 hours, it is no different than sitting at room temp.

EDIT: I'm going to move this to a new thread.


----------



## Todd (Mar 5, 2012)

I don't recall how long my old Homestead retained heat but I know my Keystones can still have a 250-300 stove top after 10+ hours and it's still putting out enough heat to keep my house temps steady. I would of thought the Heritage would be similar, maybe it's that old leaky house that's sucking the heat out of that stone?


----------



## ddddddden (Mar 5, 2012)

Maybe room temp is slightly higher if the room has a large object sitting in it that is @ 100+ deg?   An oil-filled electric radiator on the low setting never gets more than a lil' warm to the touch, but it takes the chill out of the room.  Worth something, I think. . .costs about $1 to run that radiator for 20 hours. :cheese:


----------



## logger (Mar 5, 2012)

Rob From Wisconsin said:
			
		

> logger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There must have been a problem with your particular stove or setup I'd think.  My Oslo easily gets 8-10 burns without much effort.  Same thing with our neighbors' Oslo.  If a $300 stove consistently outperformed the Oslo, you'd think Jotul would have gone out of bussiness by now.  Id say most Oslo owners would disagree with your 3-4 hr burn claim, but stoves and setups can be tricky.  Not saying you're wrong, but I think there was a problem somewhere for you to only get those short burns.  As long as your happy now.  Only reason I replied back is so the initial poster doesnt think those short burn times are the norm for the Oslo.


----------



## firefighterjake (Mar 5, 2012)

I have sometimes had my head turned by the beauty of the soapstone stoves . . . but honestly my plain Jane matte black Oslo has kept me mighty warm for the past three years with nothing more than cleaning and it really has done all that I ask it to do . . . mainly keep me warm all winter long, have decent burn times, etc. Of course as Shari is so often keen to remind me . . . if I had been a little more patient and a little less frugal I could have had the blue black Oslo that I really would have liked to own.


----------



## Highbeam (Mar 5, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:
			
		

> Den said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The heritage is advertised as 2.3 CF which is larger than a fireview. I have no problem getting overnight burns with it and it is still "can't hold your hand on it for long" hot in the morning after 9 hours. It is an absolute fact that a 100 degree stove is putting heat into the room so long as the room is under 100. Not much of course, but certainly some. 

The stone is nice but isn't the most important feature of a stove. I would trade the stone for a cat.

Remember, if you close your eyes you can't tell what the 500 degree stove is made out of. The only reasons for stone are looks, heat retention between burn cycles, and that slow cool down.


----------

