Coalpail.com Forum

ok, you know how I said I frequent antique stores and you say a stove is not a toy? I found what I thought was a toy, it was about foot, foot-and-a-half tall, cast iron
pot belly stove with all movable parts that was most likely a show room piece in order to obtain distributors for their stoves, but it was $350, however they are having a 25% off sale! gosh, I wanted that thing!

nikonmom wrote:ok, you know how I said I frequent antique stores and you say a stove is not a toy? I found what I thought was a toy, it was about foot, foot-and-a-half tall, cast iron
pot belly stove with all movable parts that was most likely a show room piece in order to obtain distributors for their stoves, but it was $350, however they are having a 25% off sale! gosh, I wanted that thing!

Do you have some photos of that Man's toy Or a brand name
I was just joking when I talked about a stove is not a toy. In fact it's not a toy

if you will tell me how to send a private message, I will give you the info. ha....

i have a picture of the "toy" that I can email you

nikonmom wrote:i have a picture of the "toy" that I can email you

Just click on the members name (profile) and you'll see the link to be able to send a private message.

Also yes is the answer to you coal burning question. The round cylinder stoves are best at coal burning. Much more so than burning wood. The small square Glenwood parlor stove you describe is a wood stove. They made lots of those as room heaters. Generally speaking, if you have the ash pan and vents on the ash pit door (air) under the grates and the grates move (shake) then you can burn coal.

can cracks in the firepot (now I know where the word crackpot comes from) be fixed? I might as well ruin the rest of the stove.

I'd recommend having the door and the firepot recast from your damaged originals. Put the pieces back together such that the shape and
diemensions are correct, The recast parts will be about 8-10% smaller than the original parts.
Tomohawk ? foundry in Wisconsin is the foundry usually recommended.

Greg L

The name OAK may just be the copies of the Round Oak Stove company.
At least that's what the wiki article indicates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Oak_Stove_Company

From the article -

The origin of the name Round Oak is unknown. The first theory is that Beckwith stoves were round and could hold a section of whole round oak tree in the firepot. The second theorizes that he named it after a foundry of the same name in England.

Thanks to the OP since I had often wondered what was the deal with the word 'OAK' in various stoves.

I don't know the origins but the word Oak in a stove's name seems to refer to a particular pattern of stove construction. A cast iron base on which is placed a fire pot that has the outside exposed. Above that a cast iron frame with a door to feed the fire and that is attached to a sheet metal barrel with a smoke outlet.

In looking at four antique Sears catalogs and many other stove catalogs, Oak stoves always have this construction. When the fire pot is enclosed within the stove body it is never called an Oak.

it needs work now

Nice looking MO114 Richard. Heck of a deal too! Looks just like mine on a diet.

SteveZee wrote:Nice looking MO114 Richard. Heck of a deal too! Looks just like mine on a diet.

It has worked out well. I was a little afraid that the shaker would drop too many live coals after reading your experience with your cook stove and that both you and William favor stove size coal, which I assume is for that reason. It turned out that the fire bridges just enough to allow the ash to drop easily without dropping more than a few pieces of pea size coal and frequently not even that. Easiest and fastest shake down of any stove I have tried. The coal I an using seems to be a mix from stove to pea size. You can see the 6 point socket I use for shake down in the picture.

The stove lacks the back pipe but since I run it at low output (20 pound per day) the stack temperature is just right at a bit less than 200 on the surface of the pipe. Four feet further I can hold my hand on it.

What a nice collection to have all three sizes of the stove.

Would very much like to try a stove with the design of Williams no. 9. They are not as pretty so should be less money.

franco b wrote:

SteveZee wrote:Nice looking MO114 Richard. Heck of a deal too! Looks just like mine on a diet.

It has worked out well. I was a little afraid that the shaker would drop too many live coals after reading your experience with your cook stove and that both you and William favor stove size coal, which I assume is for that reason. It turned out that the fire bridges just enough to allow the ash to drop easily without dropping more than a few pieces of pea size coal and frequently not even that. Easiest and fastest shake down of any stove I have tried. The coal I an using seems to be a mix from stove to pea size. You can see the 6 point socket I use for shake down in the picture.

The stove lacks the back pipe but since I run it at low output (20 pound per day) the stack temperature is just right at a bit less than 200 on the surface of the pipe. Four feet further I can hold my hand on it.

What a nice collection to have all three sizes of the stove.

Would very much like to try a stove with the design of Williams no. 9. They are not as pretty so should be less money.

Yeah me too Richard. That base burner style with the isolated pot is maybe the best design ever? Simple and efficient with few moving parts. Like to find one in the 16" size and compare.

Steve, what you want then is an Our Glenwood No 113. That's the largest base heater of that design that I am aware of.

wsherrick wrote:Steve, what you want then is an Our Glenwood No 113. That's the largest base heater of that design that I am aware of.

William, The perfect rig would be a 16"-18" pot in that base burner design like your upstairs stove but with prismatic grates. I wonder why they didn't make more of those design in larger sizes?