Antique Vs. Modern Coal Burners

This may seem obvious to some...

I've been researching secondary and tertiary combustion of modern wood stoves, as well as catalytic stoves (won't go that route), versus their older and far less efficient wood burners of years gone by without secondary combustion ability.

Since I'm fairly 'green' around the gills concerning coal stoves, I was wondering if it's safe to assume the same applies to coal stoves? Particularly base heater wood/coal burners vs. modern coal stoves like, Legacy, D.S., Hitzer, etc. I haven't had time to research if these modern coal stoves offer/need secondary combustion or not. I'm speaking strictly of hand fired stoves both wood and coal. Wasn't sure to put this thread in general discussion or hand fired discussion. Feel free to move the thread if necessary.

Oh, boy.................here we go again

Myself, I've been around the older stoves for ever. In those days we burned wood. Had some good stoves, and some bad stoves. Some stoves better than others.

Been burning coal for roughly 25 years. From what I see, the same applies.

The guys that use the antique coal stoves around here swear that the modern coal stoves have substantially less efficiency.

I'm one of very few on the forum that have run both on the same chimney during the same heating season. So to me there is no comparison. My smaller Crawford 20 burned less coal and provided the same heat output. By that I mean the C20 kept the house at the same inside temp as my larger (firepot size) Harman MK II on the same outside temp days. The style of antique I run is also much less dirty to service. Once you run a base heater with an internal check and ash pan that is larger than the grate area this becomes evident.

New stoves certainly get the job done, just not quite as well overall as the high end antiques. As Oliver says, I'm sure there are poorly executed early stoves.

For me, it boils down to this ......

I can't stand looking at a black box in my family room.

Some guys can't stand looking at a black cylinder dressed up with nickel in their family room.

Different strokes for different folks.

Advantages of the antiques are:

Handsome styling.
Round fire pot is more efficient at distributing air through the fire bed. If that fire pot is brick lined or circulates flue gas around it, burn, efficiency increases.
Increased heat exchange surface of base heaters or those with supplementary back pipe.
The triangular or prismatic grates on some are the best at clearing ash. Circular grates less so.

Advantages of modern coal stoves are:

Nice fire view superior to much smaller mica windows that tend to cloud up.
Those equipped with both bi-metal thermostat and hopper are much quicker to tend . Less puff back potential. Air control can remain at one setting unless wanting more or less heat. More set and forget.
Steel construction less subject to cracking, but more subject to rust. Fewer seams to leak. Top loading on many is nice and quicker than shoveling coal in.

Most, both new and old could use a larger ash pan. Very few at higher burn rates can go 24 hours without emptying ash pan. A messy job.

For cleanliness of tending I would give the nod to the old, assuming top of the line stoves and not the thousands of very cheap ones produced. In the Glenwood I have it is very obvious that a lot of consideration of this went into the design.

Just about all the new have UL approval with clearance dimensions set which may or may not be important to insurance companies.

All of this is generalities and the particular stove could differ in build or features.

Nice summary Franco b...

To your list I would add:

If your antique breaks, you don't have anyone to call (well, not the same as modern stove anyway - there, of course, the stove restorers). You might even have a really hard time fixing/replacing whatever broke. Modern stoves come with a warranty plus the manufacturers tend to stand by their stoves.

I have to rework seals and the like on my antique stove with greater frequency than a modern stove would need regarding that same level of attention.

If you are handy and can fix things, an antique would be fine. If you are not (or simply don't have the time) and need someone else to do that kind of work, probably better to go with a modern stove.

dj

Thanks for the input. It's nice to see pros and cons as well as read from someone who's used more than one type of stove.

I would like to see some pictures, or links to threads, of some of these higher quality stoves. I like the idea of easy cleaning with little dust.

One thing is for certain; William's video is what put me on to base heaters. Had that not happened I still wouldn't know one antique from another. That said, I have a lot to learn and it can get overwhelming in a hurry. They all tend to blend together in outward appearance let alone knowing how each functions on the inside.

So far, I like what I've read (a few posts and comments) about Glennwood's and Crawfords...which isn't a whole lot at this point, but it's a start in the right direction.

Oh one more thing I'd add looking back at your original post - If you are thinking to run wood for any significant amount of time in your stove - modern wood burners are so much better than the older stoves, it is a no brainer - go modern. You can't burn coal in a wood burner. You can burn wood in a coal burner. My antique stove says it runs wood and coal. I ran wood for years in it. I'd never do it again (unless I had absolutely no other option). If I had to run any significant amount of wood, I'd buy a modern wood stove. If I was planning on running wood say two months and coal the remaining 4 months, I'd put in a separate chimney and a modern wood stove.

dj

DJ, that is exactly what I do. Have a small modern woodstove in the living room for the shoulder seasons; then when the weather gets bitchy I fire up the boiler in the basement. My beagles down there love it when I do.
Jim

SWPaDon wrote:Oh, boy.................here we go again

+1

deepwoods wrote:

SWPaDon wrote:Oh, boy.................here we go again

+1

LOL

SWPaDon wrote:

deepwoods wrote:Oh, boy.................here we go again
+1

LOL

C'mon guys - we've been real good on this thread...

coalder wrote:DJ, that is exactly what I do. Have a small modern woodstove in the living room for the shoulder seasons; then when the weather gets bitchy I fire up the boiler in the basement. My beagles down there love it when I do.
Jim

Coalder - I just helped a friend of mine take out a 1990's Vermont Castings wood stove - nice venerable old stove - but it was killing him in wood consumption. He put in one of these nice modern high efficiency wood stoves and he is blown away at how much better it runs. I spent a good amount of time trying to convince him to go to coal... But he has 20+ acres of woods, says he has all this "free" fuel he can't see going to coal... I worked real hard on that one, but ... you know what they say about leading a horse to water...

dj

There is no reason for controversy on this subject. Both old and new have good points.

I have yet to see the stove, old or new I would consider perfect.

Maybe a good subject for a new thread. The Perfect Stove.

franco b wrote:There is no reason for controversy on this subject. Both old and new have good points.

I have yet to see the stove, old or new I would consider perfect.

Maybe a good subject for a new thread. The Perfect Stove.

That's easy Franco....it's obviously the Crawford 40 Hahahahahahaha Hahahahahahaha!!!