I have really appreciated everyone's imput thus far. It has given us a lot to thiink on. I appreciate that everyone has a different opinion about the ash drawer, which I didn't expect, but it takes all kinds to make the world go round. Having said that, there isn't much point in discussing it, because my husband has tended stoves with the ash drawer and without it and he prefers the ash drawer. Only going to say this one more time: the Jotul Oslo that I have has a wicked functional ash pan if this is truly important for your husband. Burning 24/7 I dump it about two times a week . . . it works well.
So far in our research of stoves and not having a chance to go and look at any yet (hopefully in two days), my husband favors the Leyden, because he really likes the idea of that top loading feature. The Ashely was a side loader and his dad has a front loader and a side loader and the idea of not having to struggle situating the wood while in a squatting position sounds appealing to him. I am not sure the Leyden will be big enough for the house. If he likes the idea of a top loader, maybe he should look at the Jotul Rangley.
I saw a Jotul F 600 that someone is selling privately in our area. It was only used one burning season, and although I don't relish the thought of not knowing exactly what I might be getting, it looks tempting. I am almost wondering if the Jotul F 600 would be too big for the house and roast us out. Just something we have pondered. If the price was right and the condition was good I would give that a serious consideration -- my own feeling is that it is better to be a little too big than too small as you can always build smaller fires in a larger firebox vs. trying to stuff more wood into a smaller firebox already filled to capacity or overfiring a smaller stove to keep warm . . . especially if the house is a drafty farmhouse. Some others that I have been looking at more seriously as well are: the Jotul Rangler, The Quadra Fire Isle Royal--I like the firebox size and the heat efficiancy, though the price is creeping up there, the Harman Oakwood (though the price is creeping up a little high on that one as well). I haven't found prices for the Bennington or the Jotuls (Jotuls are not a budget line stove -- but you get what you pay for with good looks and near bullet-proof performance year in and year out), but the Jotuls probably impress me the most so far with their heat efficiancy. (Don't go by just the ratings -- many of the companies put their own spin on efficiency and the ratings). Vermont Castings scares me with the negative ratings it has been getting as of late and were it that they were making recorded and noted steps towards improvement, I don't think I am willing to consider them. I like the idea of the catalytic stoves, and the Fireview impresses me some, but I am concerned the firebox is too small. I forget where I read it, but remember someone saying that the size of the firebox and the burn efficiancy are two big indicators of what kind of heat you will get out of a stove, and that makes sense to me. I know that the soapstove throws in an extra "x" factor that blurrs that line of thought a little bit. I have no interest in going back to something like the Ashley. Stoves have made a lot of improvements since then, and I would like to get the most use out of each piece of wood and not send as many emissions out the chimney if I can. I don't blame you -- the whole burning better for the environment is nice . . . for me the deciding factor to go with an EPA stove was to burn less wood to save time and money . . . and work . . . the benefit of going all night long is also a nice perk. I would like to keep moving forward and not do the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
So that is where we are at so far.