Ancient Rumford Fireplace Options

[greekrevival]

We have an 1820's farmhouse with lots of original character and charm, including four Rumford fireplaces. Our Jotul F500 does well enough but doesn't do much when we're at work or asleep. I am thinking pellet stove. Mrs. Greekrevival insists on pretty, as historically-appropriate as possible, and no hearth extensions out onto the old pine floors.

The fireplace I want to fill with some sort of burning appliance is terribly shallow. It's only 12" deep, 23" wide at the back, 36" wide at the opening, and there is 25" x 48" of hearth out in front and it's flush with the floor. Well, it's sort-of flush. Because it's an old house and the chimney stack hasn't settled like the perimeter walls, there's a 1" rise (a 2-degree slope) back to front on the hearth. Logs in the fireplace would roll out onto the floor.

Which way would you go: Insert? Free-standing? Can I do an insert with only 12" of depth? Pretty and historically-appropriate?

The radical option seems to be a reconditioned Franklin stove. I'd love to hear from anyone who's put in a 19th century Franklin and actually uses it to heat.

Jotul F500
A leaky, unused home-welded monster in the cellar
Stihl MS590
6-7 cords a year split by hand
40 acre woodlot and hedgerows

 

[snowleopard]

Sounds like a wonderful house. Two sites I'd steer you towards: the first carries authentic rebuilds of some pretty amazing stoves, and the second makes modern EPA stoves that have a lot of character and beauty, as well as efficiency. You may find something you like at each of these sites, and I think you can also get a lot of information about heating from them, as well as pictures of different stoves in different applications.

Old-time stove eye-candy--I spend a lot of time on this site just looking and learning: (broken link removed)

The second place I'd steer you towards is the Woodstock Stove Company, who based their stove design on some still-functioning antiques. I think you could find stoves there that would look beautiful in your house.

I would come down strongly in favor of a free-standing stove in front of the hearth. I'd encourage your wife to keep an open mind until the final decision is made. Thinking doesn't cost a thing, and it's a lot easier than moving a stove. Consider all the possibilities before you lock in to something.

Keep us informed, and pix would be great.

 

[zzr7ky]

Like Snowleopard said!

 

[HollowHill]

+1 on Snowleopard's suggestions. They are excellent. I also live in an old house (1805) and will be getting a woodstove this summer to put in front of my Rumford fireplace (reproduction). I love the looks of the Woodstock Fireview, soothes my antique-loving soul, and I bet your wife will be interested in it as well. I was thrilled to find a stove that looked antique, but had all the new technology benefits as well. Read the reviews on this site for the various stoves, they are very helpful. Good luck with your search and let us know how it goes!

 

[ddddddden]

+1 for a hearth-mount stove, but I don't see that happening without hearth modification, unless your lintel is high enough to allow the stove to sit partially in the fireplace. Most stoves require at least 16" of hearth in front of the stove. Since it has no door in front, Woodstock requires only 8", but the stove occupies 20", so that's 28" minimum hearth depth. If your hearth is 8" high off of the floor, that would also satisfy the requirement. If the Mrs. won't let you extend the hearth out, maybe she would let you raise it. What is the height of your lintel?


Looking at inserts, most of are made of plate steel and are not very antique-looking. Exceptions that come to mind are the Jotuls and the PE Alderlea insert, which is iron-clad, but it doesn't look like any of these would fit into your 12" deep fireplace.


Not to discourage you from running 2 stoves, but the F500 should be doing more for you than indicated. Plenty of folks around here heat while they sleep with an F500 on an overnight burn.
Are you not trying to burn while asleep for safety concerns, or are you unable to sustain long burns in the F500? If the latter, then an official hearth.com review of your practices is in order.

 

[firefighterjake]

Like Den I'm a bit curious . . . the Oslo does OK when you're awake . . . not sure why it wouldn't work so well when you're asleep or away from the house during the day. Granted it may not have as fantastically long burn times as some stoves with cats . . . but in my own case I typically reload the stove at 9:30 a.m. in my 1,800 square foot two-story Cape (mid-1970s with typical insulation for the time -- although I have added some more as time has gone by) . . . and when I wake up around 5-5:45 a.m. there are typically enough coals to get the fire going again . . . temp rarely drops down to below 60 degrees as this is the temp I have my thermostat set at to kick on my oil boiler. When I leave for work in the morning I re-load the stove and it will generally last 4-5 hours of good heat and another 3-4 hours where I can get some decent coals for a reload. I cannot say I entirely heat with wood . . . but I'm guessing I heat 96% with wood.

 

[firefighterjake]

I forgot to add . . . if I wanted to preserve the historical charm of a place like a Greek Revival or Victorian even . . . and wanted long burn times I would most definitely take a long, hard look at the Fireview from Woodstock . . . long burns = good looks = happy spouse.

I think I would do free-standing since I suspect you will not find many wood burning inserts or pellet stoves with such a shallow depth . . . plus free standing stoves can give you a good look and give off more heat without the need for fans or blowers. The negative is lost room space and the potential need to build a wider/longer hearth . . . to me it would be a suitable trade off.

As for a reconditioned Franklin stove . . . I like the looks of these classic stoves . . . but if you're looking for a safe, long burn these are probably not the stove for you . . . I mean to say they can be safe if reconditioned . . . but you will pay a pretty penny for one in good shape or to be reconditioned and you'll still have a stove that is quite old, quite inefficient and not a nice clean burning stove. If looks are important . . . I really, truly, honestly would give Woodstock's soapstone stoves a good hard look.

 

[ddddddden]

+ an antique stove would have enormous clearance requirements. 36" in every direction, AFAIK.

 

[ddddddden]

DP.