Are soap stone stoves worth the money?

[Slow1]

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.

I have to agree. Although I participated in some of those calculations in the other thread I'm quite certain that the model that we were using to calculate the heat output is over simplified. Basically the model is assuming that the heat output is going to be at the same rate (max BTU/hr rate for the stove) for both materials. Well... I don't think this is the case. Although we may well have calculated the storage _Capacity_ correctly between the cast and soapstone stoves, the rate at which it gives up that heat and radiates it to the room has not really been (in my opinion) properly accounted for. The thermal properties of the materials are different. Observation of my own having had both a cast and stone stove burning in my home this year tells me that there clearly is a significant difference and I'm certain it isn't any sort of "I'm in love with the stove/placebo effect". My wife rolls her eyes at my passion for this stuff and she has noticed the difference so there's an independent "frankly slow1 I don't give a ****" opinion

Anyway - one simply has to experience the difference is all I can say. Whether it is better or worse depends on what you like as it is not necessarily for everyone. I can see folks who would rather have near instant full heat and even would rather have it cool off quickly. For me the long slower heat is preferable. I like that as I sit here I the stone is still radiating heat that I can feel even though the cat has long stopped burning and there is hardly a coal showing red in the stove. I know that in a couple hours the stove will likely still be too hot to touch and thus the room won't cool nearly as fast as it did with my old stove.

As to 'extra cost' - I paid less for this stove than I did for my old VC a year earlier despite shopping around quite a bit and buying it online (and that doesn't include the federal rebate). Granted that was due to a very good sale they had running, but it was what it was. My point being that soapstone itself isn't necessarily more expensive than other materials. They do tend to be in the "premium" class of stoves - you won't find them at lowes or HD (at least not yet - give them time?) for $500 at end of the season, but they aren't in the 2x the price of everything else class either.

 

[branchburner]

Is it worth the extra money? Based on my shopping, there was no extra money, but if there was, yes.

I think that says it all. Woodstock is fairly priced, not overpriced. And has there ever been anything but heaps of praise from Fireview owners on this forum?

 

[Patapsco Mike]

For a 24/7 burner like me, whose stove is always hot, it seems silly to spend extra money on something to "even out the heat." I think a super-heavy stove (it matters not whether it's stone- there is nothing magical about soapstone) might make sense if you let your fire burn out every night, as the extra weight will store heat and release it after the fire dies down. But for a person who does not let the fire go out for several months, the stone does nothing. Once it is up to temperature it releases heat like any other stove.

But they are obviously nice, well made stoves that lots of people love, so I would never tell anyone buying a good soapstone stove like a Woodstock is a mistake. They work just fine.

 

[CTburning]

Most of the stoves I looked at were more than Fireview that I bought. Quadrafire was at least as much. Blaze King in Connecticut is much more than than any of those, same with Hearthstone's Heritage. Compared to an Englander, yes the Fireview is at least twice as much. The soapstone stoves are in the same range as the mid range stoves, $2-3k.

 

[woodgeek]

Ok guys--you got me. I'll admit to a mistake, and you are the politest forum on the web. Didn't mean to stir.

Pushing the numbers more carefully (summarized at the beginning of this thread b/c of the date snafu) it looks like the storage of ss stove is TWICE that of a similar mass steel stove, enough that it should reduce the peak to valley BTU output variation of the stove by 30-50% or so, and make the cool down time twice as long, all def enough to notice and appreciate. Apologies....I like to get the math right.

BUT, to the larger issue of value and bang for the buck, if you already have an EPA steel stove, and you are alternately baking and freezing, then it is probably more cost effective to improve your heat circulation to your house and use the storage of your house mass (if feasible) rather than dropping the cash to get a rock. So, what I am saying is that all the attention we pay to layout and circulation around here is also important, and serves much the same purpose as getting ss storage. In other words, you can get a similar level of comfort with a steel stove and a good layout as a ss and a crappy one.

 

[Bone1099]

I have yet to see anyone compare anything but heat delay and retention. What about whether or not the stones will crack or how diffucult is it to remove ashes and how frequent. I have seen lots of these stoves for sale with cracked stones or some kind of stains on them. Im not very familiar with SS stoves and i know that cast iron stoves are also known to crack and need to be rebuilt from time to time. Plate steel is the olny material in my book that is the definitive answer to durability. but i havent seen many plate steel stoves that look as good as cast or SS stoves. Maybe its just my own taste but isnt it time for stove manufacturers to let go already GOLD PLATING IS WAAAAY OUT OF STYLE. sorry but when im out stove surfing i just look at some of these stoves and think to myself really people buy those GAG. Wish someone would just build a plain steel stove with a nice cast door that burns efficiently and meets all the epa requirements. why not something like a fisher with up to date burn technology.

 

[firefighterjake]

Is it worth the extra money? Based on my shopping, there was no extra money, but if there was, yes.

I think that says it all. Woodstock is fairly priced, not overpriced. And has there ever been anything but heaps of praise from Fireview owners on this forum?

I only wish Woodstock had a stove comparable to the Fireview, but a little more plain Jane looking like the Heritage (and adding a second door would be the icing on the cake) . . . the Fireview is a little too fancy for my plebian tastes.

 

[firefighterjake]

Ok guys--you got me. I'll admit to a mistake, and you are the politest forum on the web. Didn't mean to stir.

Pushing the numbers more carefully (summarized at the beginning of this thread b/c of the date snafu) it looks like the storage of ss stove is TWICE that of a similar mass steel stove, enough that it should reduce the peak to valley BTU output variation of the stove by 30-50% or so, and make the cool down time twice as long, all def enough to notice and appreciate. Apologies....I like to get the math right.

BUT, to the larger issue of value and bang for the buck, if you already have an EPA steel stove, and you are alternately baking and freezing, then it is probably more cost effective to improve your heat circulation to your house and use the storage of your house mass (if feasible) rather than dropping the cash to get a rock. So, what I am saying is that all the attention we pay to layout and circulation around here is also important, and serves much the same purpose as getting ss storage. In other words, you can get a similar level of comfort with a steel stove and a good layout as a ss and a crappy one.

Not having experienced soapstone stoves . . . I will say other than the room with our cast iron stove sometimes getting a little too warm (which is often the result of me or my wife getting a little too zealous with the reloading frequency or forgetting to turn on the fan) . . . I have to say that I've never really experienced a whole lot of temperature fluctuations with my cast iron stove . . . I haven't really seen a wide temp range from being cold to warm to being driven out by the heat . . . I think Woodgeek may have a point that moving the heat and retaining the heat (via thermal mass, home insulation, etc.) can give one a moderating amount of heat . . . perhaps it is not the same as soapstone . . . which I believe since many folks have experienced both types and say there is a difference . . . but I would suggest that moving the heat, knowing how to run the stove efficiently and having a home with good insulation is something that all woodburners should take a good look at before just naturally thinking a soapstone stove is the end-all and be-all . . .

That said . . . I want one . . . yeah, Highbeam . . . you and all your stoner buddies have convinced me . . . but I'm thinking it may be awhile before I can convince my wife and the one I really want hasn't been made yet . . . the "Heriview" (or maybe it would be the "Firetage" -- a stove that looks like the Heritage with two doors, but has a cat and the customer service aspect from Woodstock.)

 

[Flatbedford]

We weren't crazy about the looks of it at first either, too much frufru, but my wife and I have grown to love the way it looks. I would have gone with the Keystone for its looks, but I wanted the larger firebox of the Fireview.

 

[wendell]

I definitely agree about the "frufru". Even the Heritage is too frilly for me There are at least 20 stoves I like better than the Fireview but it is growing on me and know that we made the right choice.

Now, if they came out with Morsoesque 2.75 cf version in the next months. I would be more than happy to exchange!