Are soap stone stoves worth the money?

[logger]

Id figure out what type of burner you will be first. Like Highbeam said, if you're not going to burn around the clock, it may not be worth the money. These stoves can take a while before they put heat out to the temp you're looking for. If you'll just be burning after work most nights, you might not be where you wanna be temp-wise till almost bedtime.

 

[firefighterjake]

Are soap stone stoves worth the money?

No.

EDIT - Full disclosure: I hate the way SS stoves look and opening or closing the vents can largely obviate and "heat spikes" that the soap stone allegedly ameliorates.

You know I've been sitting back quietly for awhile now wondering if I was doing something wrong . . . since quite honestly my cast iron stove doesn't seem to have any real huge spikes and drops in the temp . . . at least not that I notice . . . other than when I first start it from a cold start or when I come home after being away all day and/or after an overnight fire. When I'm around the temperature is pretty moderate (at least with the fan circulating the heat throughout the house) . . . when the fire begins to coal up I toss on some more splits or rounds, the fire roars back to life followed by the secondary action . . . but usually the heat output feels the same to me . . . no real huge change in temperature.

 

[firefighterjake]

Id figure out what type of burner you will be first. Like Highbeam said, if you're not going to burn around the clock, it may not be worth the money. These stoves can take a while before they put heat out to the temp you're looking for. If you'll just be burning after work most nights, you might not be where you wanna be temp-wise till almost bedtime.

Which is the conventional thinking on this . . . but wasn't it Backwoods or another soapstone user who said his stove started heating the place up pretty quickly . . . I'm beginning to wonder if there really is much of a difference in the heating qualities between steel, cast iron and soapstone . . . I mean, I do realize there will be some variations and longer heat retention perhaps and on obvious difference between cats and non-cats, but is there that much of a difference in time to heat, spikes and valleys, etc. between the various building materials?

 

[Pauly]

i see it weighs 689 pounds. can your floor handle that?

 

[Highbeam]

Id figure out what type of burner you will be first. Like Highbeam said, if you're not going to burn around the clock, it may not be worth the money. These stoves can take a while before they put heat out to the temp you're looking for. If you'll just be burning after work most nights, you might not be where you wanna be temp-wise till almost bedtime.

Which is the conventional thinking on this . . . but wasn't it Backwoods or another soapstone user who said his stove started heating the place up pretty quickly . . . I'm beginning to wonder if there really is much of a difference in the heating qualities between steel, cast iron and soapstone . . . I mean, I do realize there will be some variations and longer heat retention perhaps and on obvious difference between cats and non-cats, but is there that much of a difference in time to heat, spikes and valleys, etc. between the various building materials?

Yes, there really is a difference. Soapstone takes much longer to begin making heat. It's a negative thing and I am being honest about it. I can have my flue temps at 900 degrees within 20 minutes and the stove is just beginning to hit 200. You are rewarded for this slow warmup by heat long after the fire dies out, but the stone stoves are not great at quickly heating a house from 60-70 in an hour. Note that cast iron has much more mass than plate steel and falls somewhere between stone and plate in operational characteristics.

Dennis isn't very conventional, he is godlike in his ability to heat up a stone stove rapidly along with his effortless operation of that complicated cat stove.

Best way to know is to buy a stone stove Jake.

 

[Todd]

Id figure out what type of burner you will be first. Like Highbeam said, if you're not going to burn around the clock, it may not be worth the money. These stoves can take a while before they put heat out to the temp you're looking for. If you'll just be burning after work most nights, you might not be where you wanna be temp-wise till almost bedtime.

Which is the conventional thinking on this . . . but wasn't it Backwoods or another soapstone user who said his stove started heating the place up pretty quickly . . . I'm beginning to wonder if there really is much of a difference in the heating qualities between steel, cast iron and soapstone . . . I mean, I do realize there will be some variations and longer heat retention perhaps and on obvious difference between cats and non-cats, but is there that much of a difference in time to heat, spikes and valleys, etc. between the various building materials?

Yes, there really is a difference. Soapstone takes much longer to begin making heat. It's a negative thing and I am being honest about it. I can have my flue temps at 900 degrees within 20 minutes and the stove is just beginning to hit 200. You are rewarded for this slow warmup by heat long after the fire dies out, but the stone stoves are not great at quickly heating a house from 60-70 in an hour. Note that cast iron has much more mass than plate steel and falls somewhere between stone and plate in operational characteristics.

Dennis isn't very conventional, he is godlike in his ability to heat up a stone stove rapidly along with his effortless operation of that complicated cat stove.

Best way to know is to buy a stone stove Jake.

I agree with Highbeam, I also can tell a difference. When I had my Regency it was much quicker to warm up and it also has a hotter feel, you couldn't sit next to it all day cruising Hearth.com without sweating, but I can now.

Dennis is the man, but I have gotten my stove up to 500 in less than an hour if you use a lot of kindling and smaller splits. I can also get some quick heat from the 4' of single wall stove pipe.

You can still use soapstone for take the chill off fires and 1 good firing on cool fall days works great, sometimes you just need to plan ahead when you see those house temps falling.

 

[Slow1]

Ahhh.. planning ahead. I expect that no matter what stove you have that is something we wood burners need to do now isn't it? From laying up our wood supply a couple years before burning to stoking the fire (and knowing when to stop as I'm learning!). Perhaps that is the art of the whole burning experience. Lot's of delayed gratification in this business eh?

 

[Backwoods Savage]

Id figure out what type of burner you will be first. Like Highbeam said, if you're not going to burn around the clock, it may not be worth the money. These stoves can take a while before they put heat out to the temp you're looking for. If you'll just be burning after work most nights, you might not be where you wanna be temp-wise till almost bedtime.

Which is the conventional thinking on this . . . but wasn't it Backwoods or another soapstone user who said his stove started heating the place up pretty quickly . . . I'm beginning to wonder if there really is much of a difference in the heating qualities between steel, cast iron and soapstone . . . I mean, I do realize there will be some variations and longer heat retention perhaps and on obvious difference between cats and non-cats, but is there that much of a difference in time to heat, spikes and valleys, etc. between the various building materials?

Yes, there really is a difference. Soapstone takes much longer to begin making heat. It's a negative thing and I am being honest about it. I can have my flue temps at 900 degrees within 20 minutes and the stove is just beginning to hit 200. You are rewarded for this slow warmup by heat long after the fire dies out, but the stone stoves are not great at quickly heating a house from 60-70 in an hour. Note that cast iron has much more mass than plate steel and falls somewhere between stone and plate in operational characteristics.

Dennis isn't very conventional, he is godlike in his ability to heat up a stone stove rapidly along with his effortless operation of that complicated cat stove.

Best way to know is to buy a stone stove Jake.

All right you guys. Not fair talking about me when I am gone!

I could have quoted several here but had to pick Highbeam's remarks; just because. Well, I also could have quoted logger's remark, "These stoves can take a while before they put heat out to the temp you’re looking for."

It seems that no matter what is talked about with soapstone, that comment comes up. It is true.....partly. But it is awfully misleading and I fear many make that remark simply because they've heard it before or heard it often. Why not ask the guys who heat with soapstone stoves?

Okay, I'll answer it. Yes, the soapstone takes a little longer than cast or steel and you are not going to be able to stand right next to it and feel the heat like you would with steel. That also is one of the positive things about this type of stove!

I've written enough about starting the stove from cold so it doesn't need repeating except to say that it certainly doesn't take hours (like some say) to finally start feeling some heat. I'll also add that last evening I put in 3 small splits; 2 cherry and 1 soft maple. We just got home about a half hour ago and I put in 4 little pieces of kindling (soft maple that I split with a hydraulic splitter). There wasn't much there for coals but we've already added splits and it is doing very nicely, thank you.


Okay, carry on folks.

 

[Slow1]

On the whole "time it takes to throw heat" issue. I wonder if perhaps the comparisons being made may also have a lot to do with comparing older pre-epa stoves. Consider that a pre-epa steel stove likely did not have much firebrick or other insulating features in it to keep the fire burning hotter, thus when you built a fire it probably radiated out much sooner. Newer stoves (both steel and cast) likely have far more of this sort of material and are designed to focus a lot more heat into the combustion area, thus the 'warm up' time is going to be longer in a relative sense. Much of this is mitigated by better burning techniques and knowledge (burning good dry wood etc) so that first 30 minutes is likely a much better fire perhaps, but comparing a pre-epa steel stove to a pre-epa soapstone stove likely had a significantly greater delta than they do today.

Just something to think about... now back to the argument that never ends

 

[Bobbin]

Oh for heaven's sake, you guys, I've been using a Woodstock Fireview to "take the chill off" the room for 18 yrs. now. It certainly doesn't take very long for the stove to begin putting out enough heat to make a measurable difference in the comfort level of the room in question. 20-30 minutes? I can deal with a sweater for that long, thanks, but it's easier to just bring in a few loads of wood and fill the woodbox. C'mon, wood heat takes "awhile", listen to yourselves. (rolled eyes)

I can only compare our stove to that god-awful metal thing my old man had in the living room in my parents' home, perhaps a comparison with a new Jotul would be more fair... . My parents's stove was a brown enamel box (looked like an old-fashioned kerosene heater) and it cranked out so much heat you couldn't enjoy the living room even if you could have overlooked the monstrosity that was heating it so "efficiently".

I don't know if soapstone "is worth the money" for everyone, that depends on your criteria. It certainly has been for us! It burns efficiently and cleanly. It has not replaced our oil fired boiler but it has most definitely defrayed the consumption of oil and kept us cozy for 18 yrs. now, drying our clothes efficiently in the heating season. We supply our own wood (1-2 cord/yr.). And of great importance to me (because I saw how much my father's monstrosity offended Mum's aesthetic sensibility), it's been a beautiful addition to our home; handsome "furniture" when its not in use, and always garnering appreciative comments from visitors. But that's not to say that any one of the handsome enamelled stoves available wouldn't do the job as well. We have a Woodstock stove because my husband liked it WAY better than any of the enamelled models I thought were terrific looking and fully "acceptable" from an aesthetic point of view.

We saved an extra 6 mos. to buy the Woodstock, it was nearly twice the price of the enamelled stoves in 1991. But we were both totally stoked to see it in our home... it was our first "major appliance".

For us, soapstone has been "worth it".

 

[strawman]

Took me over 2 years of looking at lots of stoves, reading lots of reviews (thank y'all)and checking out a couple other Heritage owners set-ups and after about a week since my first breakin fire, I say yes, they're worth it. Been cuttin and burning wood for over 20 years and loving it. (it's my therapy) . Still in the 50's here so haven't been able to let'ersnap yet but have already gotten to the "stone still giving heat in the morning" stage without overfiring or cracking open windows before bedtime. Very mellow heat. It was still 70 in here when I got home today..dammit. Had to open the patio door and cool'er down so I can see my therapist tonite.

 

[Tedsokol]

I've been fortunate enough to have burned both, a steel stove and a soapstone stove within the last ten years. They really are very different. Here's my take.

I started burning a Regency 2500. It was a 75000 Btu steel stove. The draft within the stove was great. Fires started up fast and it heated the house quickly but when you got up in the morning the house was uncomfortably cold on really cold nights.

Then I got the Hearthstone Mansfield (80,000 Btu's). It takes some getting used to in starting up fires. It takes a bit longer to start the fire up and get the flue warmed up. I think, and this is just my opinion, the massive amount of mass in the stone robs much of the heat that should be warming the flue and it takes a while to build draft for the kindling to really get going into a roaring fire. This is really only on a cold start. I burn 24/7 in the winters and this really doesn't effect me much. Except when I'm away for an occasional weekend trip. Upon my return it does take HOURS to get the house up to temp when the whole house has been sitting at 50 degrees for the weekend. You have to remember everything is relative. Fortunately, for me, this is rare.

Under the same conditions (being away for the weekend, 50 degrees upon arrival) When I burned the Regency I was comfortable in a couple of hours. Heat dispersed much quicker from the steel stove.

When burning the soapstone, I never experience uncomfortably cold mornings and this to me is why I really like the Mansfield.
So you may want to consider the type of stove you purchase based on your lifestyle.

If you find yourself building lots of fires from scratch, you may want to consider a steel stove. If you light one fire in the fall and keep it going into spring you may want to consider a soapstone. The heat is really much more even.

Ted
www.woodhomeheating.com

 

[wellbuilt home]

I have a EQ and like it .
I don't think it will heat 4000 feet . My house is well over 4000 feet with 10' ceilings and i close off rooms in the winter months .
I heat 3000 feet all winter but i burn alot of wood. My old dutch west EX Large burned 3 1/2 cord a year .
My EQ burned 41/2 + last year and it wasn't very cold .
Fire wood comes easy to me, but if i was buying wood or splitting wood with a maul a couple extra cord a year is a big deal.
I like the cast iron stoves for there fast warm up .
We could add 3 splits every 4 hrs and stay warm . My EQ needs alot of wood to get cooking . I empty the ash from the stove in the morning
with a shovel , then stuff it with wood .
After work about 6.00 PM I stuff the stove again , If its a cold night I add wood before bed 11.00PM.
The stove temp Go's from 400o to around 500o . If i add wood again after a few hours the stove will peak around 550o +- and really start throwing heat .
To Keep the stove at 550o takes alot of wood 13 cubic foot a day .
The EQ will burn 12 hrs easy and even after 24hrs there will be hot coals in the stove .
I have a EQ because its the largest stove i could find that wasn't a steel box.

 

[dreezon]

I don't know about the whole money issue. When I priced stoves and inserts this summer the Woodstock Fireview seemed pretty average in price—especially when you factor in the $400 off-season discount, making it, what $2300? Actually it was less than the majority of steel & cast inserts I priced and about the same as the others. Now, the Equinox... I haven't bothered to check the price on that, but I'm sure it would make me wince.

 

[woodgeek]

I haven't ever seen or run one of those rocks--but simple math shows they are not masonry heaters...

The heat capacity of the stone might store 15-20 minutes of output (while a heavy steel stove could probably store 10 minutes). So, there might be a 5-10 minute extra lag on startup, and 5-10 minutes of extra heat a couple hours later, doesn't sound like a big (or even noticeable w/o confirmation bias) difference. As for 'spikes', I have never seen my stove 'spike' over a time scale shorter than 40 minutes, I don't think the extra 10 minutes of storage is going to spread or 'soften' that out much. I expect much of the positive testimonials are more related to differences in convection/radiation heat xfer and radiant surface area than 'storage'.

If some folks think they're pretty, and have the $$, they should go for it. But in a 'blind taste test', I suspect most people couldn't tell the difference in heating standing 3 feet away.

Edit: we discussed heat capacity here: https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/42152/

 

[greythorn3]

I haven't ever seen or run one of those rocks--but simple math shows they are not masonry heaters...

The heat capacity of the stone might store 15-20 minutes of output (while a heavy steel stove could probably store 10 minutes). So, there might be a 5-10 minute extra lag on startup, and 5-10 minutes of extra heat a couple hours later, doesn't sound like a big (or even noticeable w/o confirmation bias) difference. As for 'spikes', I have never seen my stove 'spike' over a time scale shorter than 40 minutes, I don't think the extra 10 minutes of storage is going to spread or 'soften' that out much. I expect much of the positive testimonials are more related to differences in convection/radiation heat xfer and radiant surface area than 'storage'.

If some folks think they're pretty, and have the $$, they should go for it. But in a 'blind taste test', I suspect most people couldn't tell the difference in heating standing 3 feet away.

iw ill just keep my blazeking and stack a buncha soapstones on top of it and along the side on the hearth

 

[firefighterjake]

Id figure out what type of burner you will be first. Like Highbeam said, if you're not going to burn around the clock, it may not be worth the money. These stoves can take a while before they put heat out to the temp you're looking for. If you'll just be burning after work most nights, you might not be where you wanna be temp-wise till almost bedtime.

Which is the conventional thinking on this . . . but wasn't it Backwoods or another soapstone user who said his stove started heating the place up pretty quickly . . . I'm beginning to wonder if there really is much of a difference in the heating qualities between steel, cast iron and soapstone . . . I mean, I do realize there will be some variations and longer heat retention perhaps and on obvious difference between cats and non-cats, but is there that much of a difference in time to heat, spikes and valleys, etc. between the various building materials?

. . .

Best way to know is to buy a stone stove Jake.

Trying to tempt me are you Highbeam? . . . I'm still pretty happy with my cast iron anchor . . . and I'm thinking Mrs. Firefighterjake would be less than impressed if I told her I wanted to replace the 1-year old stove with another one.

 

[Highbeam]

A little tempting never hurt. Actually, the point is that until you run one you will never know the difference. It's hard to imagine when the flue is 900, the fire has been raging for like 30 minutes, and heat is burning your knees through the windows that you can place your hand on the cool stovetop.

Woodgeek's post demonstrates that you just don't know until you try one. It stays warm for hours after the fire goes out, not minutes. I have actually owned both and experienced the difference.

 

[Bobbin]

My father was stunned by the gentle heat our Woodstock emitted when he first encountered it. He couldn't believe that the uninsistant heat he felt was the result of a veritable cauldren inside the stove. When I explained how the stove worked he was amazed. That was 1991-2. Just after we installed our Fireview.

It was the same thing several years later with my brother who had just added a stove to his home and had never really taken notice of our stove before. His comment was that you could stand next to it and not be overwhelmed by the blast of heat. Ummm... yeah! He was equally stunned that it could be loaded and left to its own devices for upwards of 12 hrs.. Seems his "little sister" is leagues ahead when it comes to understanding woodstoves, lol.

Soapstone is different. I spoke with friends of our's who have a masonry heater in their downeast home. Their experience heating their home with wood is very much in line with our own. You start the fire, you keep it going and you realize maximum benefit when the stone/thermal mass heats through and begins to readiate the heat most efficiently.

Clearly, their system takes longer to deliver the goods than our stoves do, but the result is the same... slow, easy radiation of heat into the space surrounding it.

 

[yanksforever]

Yes...They are the Rolls Royce of Wood Stoves...everyone knows that. When you use oil or gas heat
in your home..you don't turn it up to 95 you want it at a nice 70-75 temp. Why would you want to get
blown out of the room your sitting in? That's what soapstone stoves do for you. YES THEY ARE WORTH IT.
Ask all the hearthstone or fireview owners..they will tell you. In My honorable opinion!

 

[yanksforever]

P.S. LETS GO YANKEES!

 

[mikemata]

No its no worth any money unless your floor can stand the weight.



mikemata
______
(broken link removed)

 

[hotpellet]

Thanks for all your valued opinions, The stove is in the back of my truck as we speak and will be sitting in place tomorrow awaiting a break in fire. Now I just need to find a small army to get the stove into the house. The nearly 800lbs is going to be a feat of its own. Any takers???

 

[Backwoods Savage]

For moving the stove, we used a furniture dolly. I unloaded it myself from the trailer to the dolly but had help getting it in the house and lifting onto the hearth.

Good luck with that new stove and happy burning! (You'll find it was worth it too. lol)

 

[Flatbedford]

I haven't ever seen or run one of those rocks --but simple math shows they are not masonry heaters...

The heat capacity of the stone might store 15-20 minutes of output (while a heavy steel stove could probably store 10 minutes). So, there might be a 5-10 minute extra lag on startup, and 5-10 minutes of extra heat a couple hours later, doesn't sound like a big (or even noticeable w/o confirmation bias) difference. As for 'spikes', I have never seen my stove 'spike' over a time scale shorter than 40 minutes, I don't think the extra 10 minutes of storage is going to spread or 'soften' that out much. I expect much of the positive testimonials are more related to differences in convection/radiation heat xfer and radiant surface area than 'storage'.

If some folks think they're pretty, and have the $$, they should go for it. But in a 'blind taste test', I suspect most people couldn't tell the difference in heating standing 3 feet away.

Edit: we discussed heat capacity here: https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/42152/

You should have stopped typing after the words "I haven't ever seen or run one of those rocks" because everything you speculated beyond those words just backed them up. I only started burning my rock this season and I will tell you that it stays warm for hours after the fire has burned down. My old steel stove burned us out of the room with a fresh load of wood, but froze us about 3 hours later. A fresh load in the Fireview just keeps the warm coming. Is it worth the extra money? Based on my shopping, there was no extra money, but if there was, yes.