# Franklin Cast Products Scandia 100   1979 just some questions



## MikeJoel (Dec 1, 2005)

I purchased this stove last winter on a trip up to Maine when we were in need of heating a trailer.
Since that time I tested it (in my way - with a bike pump and some smoldering newspaper) for air-tightness and noticed a few leaks. So I dismantled the stove and then rebuilt it with Rutland Hi-Temp Stove and Gasket Cement. I still need to sand the joints to make it look better but it seems to be working well. I just have some questions.....

I know that basically Franklin Cast Products had Taiwan copy popular stoves by other makers. I believe this was an attempt to copy a jotul stove I saw once.

1) What is this stove worth?
3) Is it supposed to be airtight? (It seems to be at least since I worked on it)?
4) Is there any information about the 100 models?

Here's a photo (It needs to still be sanded and blackened).....


----------



## webbie (Dec 1, 2005)

MikeJoel said:
			
		

> I purchased this stove last winter on a trip up to Maine when we were in need of heating a trailer.
> Since that time I tested it (in my way - with a bike pump and some smoldering newspaper) for air-tightness and noticed a few leaks. So I dismantled the stove and then rebuilt it with Rutland Hi-Temp Stove and Gasket Cement. I still need to sand the joints to make it look better but it seems to be working well. I just have some questions.....
> 
> I know that basically Franklin Cast Products had Taiwan copy popular stoves by other makers. I believe this was an attempt to copy a jotul stove I saw once.
> ...



Worth really nothing, they were sued by Jotul for copying and they lost.
No cast stoves are really airtight, just controllable.
It will be difficult to find any info. Info on the Jotul 118 (older models) is closest.


----------



## webbie (Dec 1, 2005)

Frank Ivy said:
			
		

> Sued for copying?
> 
> What?
> 
> A patent?  Tradedress?



As I remember, it was before the FTC - Trade?

Also, as I remember, the suit was also won by VC and was against Grossmans Lumber for selling the things. I think it was (again, from long ago memory) "The look of the VC, Jotul was a Trademark".....

Definitely no patents were involved....it was, I think, a Trademark issue where the makers claimed (and rightfully so) that consumers would often not know if they were actually getting the real thing!

Does that sound like trademark? In any case, Grossmans and Franklin were forced to stop, although that may not be what drove Franklin out of business. Wood stove sales were flattening anyway and Franklin also had a fiasco with some of the first catalytic stoves (the Concorde Catalytics)....


----------



## elkimmeg (Dec 1, 2005)

Rust is a sign of metal fatigue  Sacandias were junk when they first came out 30 years later now rusted junk.
You should weight it and bring it to the junk yard to see what scrap metal prices are That's what it is worth No Ul listing it can not be legally installed. So what is the worth for junk that cannot be legally installed? Substitute  junk for some other language and  you will get  what I mean


----------



## webbie (Dec 1, 2005)

elkimmeg said:
			
		

> Rust is a sign of metal fatigue


 Cast iron develops a surface rust which usually goes no further. You could take the finest castings right off Vermont Castings or Jotuls production line, dip 'em in water and they would rust in a couple days. Car exhaust manifolds sit in junkyards for decades with surface rust!

Sounds like this gentleman had this stove apart and checked and sealed it, so I doubt it is eating itself away. 

Scandia had a number of listed stoves (ICBO as I remember) at one time....of course, it will be hard to prove whether a particular model was or is listed. This is really the business of the homeowner, local officials and the installer. Many inspectors allow installation of older stoves to NFPA "generic" clearances (usually 36").

I'm not debating the point as to whether Scandia in general was...and is junk. But this gentleman seems to know what he has and is trying to make it as safe as possible. While I would prefer that people not pollute with these older stoves, I realize that I have very little say in that...people will do what they do whatever we say. So perhaps we have to back up to the next level and make certain that ANY stoves are installed and used as safely as possible...

Hopefully tax credits and stove changeout programs will help retire these antique stoves!


----------



## MikeJoel (Dec 2, 2005)

Hmmmm. I figured money wise the stove wasn't worth much but as for being junk I don't agree.

The stove is quite heavy (mass means heat storage and even radiation).

I have installed it (never have heard of 'if it is not UL listed you can't legally install it') UL stands for Underwriters Lab, they basically are an outfit that test products for companies, the testing is completely voluntary and there is no law requiring any item to be tested. (http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/1996/uwlab.html)
So far the stove is working very well. Plus there is a lot of room in that box.

Yes it is a copy of a jotul...... but hey, if you can't afford a jotul then why not find a copy 

Now rust is a sign of metal fatigue? That is the first time I have heard of that.
Rust is (cough cough) "a red or brown oxide coating on iron or steel caused by the action of oxygen and moisture". Metal fatigue is usually something you can not see with the naked eye. New ships being built in shipyards have plenty of rust on them.

I only post these comments to correct some information.

Thanks for the comments
Mike

P.S. Must have posted at the same time as the last poster.... thanks


----------



## webbie (Dec 2, 2005)

MikeJoel said:
			
		

> basically are an outfit that test products for companies, the testing is completely voluntary and there is no law requiring any item to be tested. (http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/1996/uwlab.html)



Actually, although you could decribe the testing as voluntary...that is not really accurate!

All modern stoves, appliances, electrical assemblies, etc. must be tested to applicable standards in order to be installed in a modern house. No different than cars or airplanes...they must meet certain safety standards so they are installed correctly and don't pose a hazard. Now as to the exact legality, that is past my knowledge...for instance, you can build an experimental airplane (John Denver did!) or a one-of-a-kind" car, but if you want to create large quantities of any products today, it MUST meet relevant standards. I suppose that insurance companies as well as municipalities have something to do with this....

Since NFPA actually addresses "generic" stoves, one might assume that they are allowing for installation of them...or at least giving the local official leway to do so. 

Even EPA allows exceptions....if I sell less than 50 stoves a year of a certain model, I don't have to EPA test them....this is sort of like the antique car, etc. - It's good to allow for such things. 

But we would have a real nightmare on our hands if the MILLIONS of hearth appliances sold and installed each year were not tested and listed. There has been a LOT learned over the past 25 years about keeping stoves and fireplaces safe, and it is nice to know that modern stoves have many of these improvements built in.

As far as calling the Scandia junk....we can't make a determination as to the iron quality, etc....but we can assure you that it will never have any antique or classic value. It was a "cheap" knock-off, and 98%+ of these stoves have long ago hit the scrapyard.


----------



## begreen (Dec 2, 2005)

MikeJoel said:
			
		

> Hmmmm. I figured money wise the stove wasn't worth much but as for being junk I don't agree.
> 
> Yes it is a copy of a jotul...... but hey, if you can't afford a jotul then why not find a copy



There are several nice 602s showing up on eBay at great prices.  A well kept and run 602 is a very nice, efficient little stove. There is often a big difference between a copy and the real McCoy. I suspect a lot more heat is heading up the stack with the imitation.


----------



## gem1 (Dec 6, 2005)

Mike,

I have the exact same stove....only mine looks in much better shape than yours(?). Do you have firebicks in yours?

Thanks,

Guy


----------



## MikeJoel (Dec 6, 2005)

For some reason that photo made the rust (and it is surface rust) look much worse than it look in person.... I need to sand the cement and I'll do the stove at the same time... also black it.

Mine does not have fire brick. It has metal plates that hang on the sides to protect the walls. It seems as though I saw one that had firebrick though.

Mike


----------



## gem1 (Dec 7, 2005)

Yes, mine has the metal plates also. I was just wondering what would be better to use. I also got an un-opened can of the origianl sealeant.....I wonder if it's still good?

Guy


----------



## MikeJoel (Dec 7, 2005)

1979 sealant? LOL

I used Rutland Hi-Temp Stove and Gasket Cement. They claim it is what most "professional" rebuilders use, I must say I was happy with it. It is easy to put on.

I did have a blow out when I accidentally let the fire get to hot before it completely cured. I heard a loud pop and looked and there was a small covering of sealant specks all over the floor and a jet of steam hissing from the rear seam. I checked it and it didn't appear to be going all the way through to the inside and seems as it dried it closed itself over (it was very small area anyway).

But overall the stuff hasn't really cracked or anything.

Mike


----------

