So after many hours of reading and looking at photos, going back and forth I felt drawn to the Englander or Woodstock. I was attracted the DIY style of Englander and Woodstock's customer service and company's ethos. I showed my husband the new entry into my top 3 and he about died when he saw some of the Absolute Steel styles! I found it ironic that I've read posts from some of the guys on here who couldn't get the wife approval on the WS but here I was in a roles revered situation. Soooo my husband prefers the Ideal Steel look and based on his construction background wanted 66K BTUs but said we could make the Absolute's 60k BTUs work if that's the one I like best. The gal at Woodstock listened to my home/location details and said the Absolute is a good choice but I could size up if we wanted. So now I must make the final decision. Ironically I found the AS and IS look would fit really well in my transitional home which has lots of earth tones and metal accents!!
Decision time and it looks like a Woodstock
- Thread starter LittleTea
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
I don't think you would have gone wrong with either choice . . . but the Woodstock line is quite nice.
JA600L
Minister of Fire
If you have considered the plain Absolute Steel it is actually a very nice looking stove.
I wouldn't want any of the wings or fancy designs.
The Woodstock stoves are a must see in person to appreciate stove. The pictures do no justice.
The Ideal Steel is an absolute powerhouse that can be tamed down to a very low slow burn.
I wouldn't want any of the wings or fancy designs.
The Woodstock stoves are a must see in person to appreciate stove. The pictures do no justice.
The Ideal Steel is an absolute powerhouse that can be tamed down to a very low slow burn.
The wingless four square really caught my eye the most and think the it works best in the room. I find the lines on the IS a little harsh but I love that 3 burner style cooktop and the front door vs. a side door. We're in middle North Carolina and wonder with 963 sf down and 1100 upstairs if we're getting too much stove with the IS.
Rearscreen
Minister of Fire
I think you are making the right move, going for quality over price. You are in it for the long haul. The AS should be plenty. It's 2.5 cu.ft. and you have a newer house so it should be pretty tight. I can't recommend the grated ash system enough...makes burning wood a lot cleaner and easier. Most folks love side loading, once they have done both. You might not want to make your splits too huge, so they're easier for you to handle, but with a cat stove you don't need big splits to slow down the burn.
Keep us updated with plenty of pics!
Always true.
The Woodstock line is/are a very nice attractive looking group of stove. And.......their customers seem to be a pretty happy bunch. Here, on the west coast, the shipping coast makes them (almost) prohibitive to buy, and very scarce to find one to look at & assess.
I really like that one too (4 square or prairie wingless) but I also really like the Rustic one too being that I love mountain scenes, evergreens and deer it's right up my alley. I've been really debating swapping my pellet stove out for the Absoulte now I know the hybrids can burn long enough to cover my long work shifts but I haven't pulled the trigger yet.
My Ideal Steel doesn't usually run that great with small loads, but if you fill it mostly and get it burning well, it can be turned down to a pretty low output and still burn efficiently (probably more effecient that way). Even still it seems the Absoulte can go a little lower, but gives up a little on the max burn, but that might be more suited for you. Good luck with your decision!
Ashful
Minister of Fire
Two comments:
1. Assuming you have some traditional central heating, I feel it's always better to size the stove a bit under your maximum requirements. This allows you to load it full and get long burn times during the majority of your burn season, rather than just the few coldest days. If the boiler kicks on to supplement the stove on the few coldest of days, then so be it... unless you have a heat pump. It is very frustrating to have a stove that overheats your space every time you run it.
2. I'm finding some stove manufacturers list their maximum output much, much lower than the stove's actual capability. I haven't owned a Woodstock, but I noticed BK did this with my Ashford. They give the maximum heat output at a setting which corresponds to a 10 hour (about 1/3 the max burn time), but my stove can safely rip thru a full load of oak much faster than that, achieving a much higher output rate. I don't know if the lower number they list is to prevent folks from under-sizing their stove, or maybe it's where they achieve the highest HHV efficiency numbers.
Ashful yeah makes sense... those ratings are via specif epa testing (at least for Woodstock and I believe BK), I'm not aware of the details but I am sure most stoves could go higher if need be. Some stoves must use testing that differs though, my Jotul that I had before my Woodstock was rated higher BTU but doesn't compare to the heat output capability of my new stove.
Yes, unfortunately many stove companies let marketing drive some specs as they seek competitive advantage. Blaze King deserves praise for providing meaningful tested heating output specifications.
kennyp2339
Minister of Fire
Havent seen one bad post here about Woodstock stoves, heard a couple rants were people wanted to alter the stove for there "custom" install but all in all, Woodstock seems like a really good company, I would size up if I were you, you can either choke the stove down on a full load and get minimal heat output with clean burn, or burn it hot with smaller loads and get short max heat, but have the larger fire box as insurance incase there's a bad cold snap. Good luck and post pics of the new install.
Having used both (for a few months each) I can say that I now prefer the AS over the IS, especially in a smaller square footage. Yes, both stoves can be dialed down to a degree, but it is easier to achieve and maintain secondaries and active cat in the slightly smaller firebox (and stove with less mass).
Both stoves looked much better in our house than I expected, and I actually came to like the wings of the AS that I beta-tested. But that is in the eye of the beholder. Two things that I like better about the AS are functional: 1) I prefer side-loading to front loading, as there is less ash spillage AND less smoke spillage, as well as the ability to more easily stuff the stove to the gills; 2) the ash grate in the AS is larger relative to the size of the firebox, while the design of the IS seems to make the ash pan and grate noy quite as functional. Compared to several other stoves I've had with ashpans, the IS requires more shuffling of ash to get it to fall through the grate, leading to more airborne ash in the house.
While the IS has a deeper box to allow for front-to-back placement of splits, the angled top makes this difficult except for the lower layer of splits. If a split shifts and fall on the glass, you will, have trouble if you need to open the door, where this is not an issue with the side-loader. And another issue simply involves my particular setup: my wood is all stacked to the right of the stove. With the side-load AS door to the right, I just slid logs off the stack into the stove... with the front-load opening to the right, I have to bring my splits around the open door and load from the left, which may seem like a minor inconvenience, but I prefer "more easy" to "less easy."
Having used all three, my order of preference is top-loader over side-loader over front-loader. Others may disagree. But with the same venting system my top-loader actually had less smoke spill than the front-loader.
Either way, you won't go wrong. Woodstock is a great company to deal with, with great products.
Both stoves looked much better in our house than I expected, and I actually came to like the wings of the AS that I beta-tested. But that is in the eye of the beholder. Two things that I like better about the AS are functional: 1) I prefer side-loading to front loading, as there is less ash spillage AND less smoke spillage, as well as the ability to more easily stuff the stove to the gills; 2) the ash grate in the AS is larger relative to the size of the firebox, while the design of the IS seems to make the ash pan and grate noy quite as functional. Compared to several other stoves I've had with ashpans, the IS requires more shuffling of ash to get it to fall through the grate, leading to more airborne ash in the house.
While the IS has a deeper box to allow for front-to-back placement of splits, the angled top makes this difficult except for the lower layer of splits. If a split shifts and fall on the glass, you will, have trouble if you need to open the door, where this is not an issue with the side-loader. And another issue simply involves my particular setup: my wood is all stacked to the right of the stove. With the side-load AS door to the right, I just slid logs off the stack into the stove... with the front-load opening to the right, I have to bring my splits around the open door and load from the left, which may seem like a minor inconvenience, but I prefer "more easy" to "less easy."
Having used all three, my order of preference is top-loader over side-loader over front-loader. Others may disagree. But with the same venting system my top-loader actually had less smoke spill than the front-loader.
Either way, you won't go wrong. Woodstock is a great company to deal with, with great products.
JA600L
Minister of Fire
Rearscreen
Minister of Fire
Similar threads
