Jotul Oslo Vs. Hearthstone Heritage.

logger said:

BrowningBAR said:

Halligan said:

BrowningBAR said:

Halligan said:

BrowningBAR" date="1330665839 said:

Halligan" date="1330664995 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Aint there a truck forum for that there stuff.

Ya Evidently right Here

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Dakotas Dad said:

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

Click to expand...

blasphemy!

Dakotas Dad said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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.

@ 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

BrowningBAR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Halligan said:

BrowningBAR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I've heard that before...

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.

Rob From Wisconsin,

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