Tell Me About Reading Coal Vs. Blaschak Coal

crazysteamer · Post by **crazysteamer** » Thu. Dec. 10, 2009 8:32 pm

What (if any) are the differences that I would / should be concerned with, other than $ and delivery concerns that I can sort out myself.

One better than the other?

bksaun · Post by **bksaun** » Thu. Dec. 10, 2009 8:42 pm

Burned both with good results, rice size in an Alaska stoker.

Bk

wlape3 · Post by **wlape3** » Thu. Dec. 10, 2009 8:42 pm

Depends on what type of coal. When I used to buy pea the reading coal didn't burn as well as the blaschak and had more clinkers. This was coal purchased in bulk. If you are looking at blaschak in bags vs reading in bags I can't help you there. I'm not fond of the plastic bags blaschak comes in but I've never used reading bags except stuff that was bagged at the dealer (100 lb bags of pea).

LsFarm · Post by **LsFarm** » Thu. Dec. 10, 2009 8:51 pm

Moving this to the coal quality forum.

My experience is that Reading coal has a lot more wood, shale, bone, and ash than Blaschak coal. If the price was the same, I'd buy Blaschak with no hesitation.

If you are buying bagged coal,, well, I'd still buy Blaschak, it is more expensive, but from my experience it is much better quality.

Greg L

VigIIPeaBurner · Post by **VigIIPeaBurner** » Thu. Dec. 10, 2009 10:01 pm

I've burned many tons of Reading pea in a hand fed with out major problems. I buy it in bulk but Reading does come in the typical plastic bag sized just like Blaschak. Just the occasional piece of wood. I've burned only six bags of Blaschak nut. It was easier to use than the Reading only because the ash was more powdery. The Reading seems to have a more crunchy ash (the bone Greg spoke of?) mixed with powder. No clinker problems with either but I do watch the fire temp closely.

Coals vary from vein to vein and from location in the same vein. If you use the same setting that worked for one type of coal, you might get clinkers because it might be too much air causing too hot a fire for that coal's mineral content. Too hot and the fusing point is reached then you have clinkers for certain.

csstoker · Post by **csstoker** » Fri. Dec. 11, 2009 7:04 am

I haven't burned Blaschak but am burning bagged Reading this year because of the price. Compared to the bagged coal that I burned last year- which I sense from what I read is similar in quality to Blaschak, I find the Reading to have more junk in there and the rice size is not standard- lots of smaller size and more bottom ash. Temp seems to be fine and it burns well. To me, it is more work and I am not sure of the impact ofthe smaller powder size and a little bigger impact on the auguer but so far so good. I too am considering paying more next year for the other coal because I sense it is better and produces less bottom ash. I have an Alaska stoker and Alaska says Reading is fine...

Freddy · Post by **Freddy** » Fri. Dec. 11, 2009 7:08 am

I have little experience, but have used both. I think Greg said it all when he said "If the price was the same, I'd buy Blaschak with no hesitation." I agree.

AdkCoal · Post by **AdkCoal** » Sat. Dec. 12, 2009 11:34 pm

I have burned both Blaschak and Reading in my KAA-2.

I prefer Blaschak, it makes fewer clinkers than Reading.

Both come in 40 pund plastic bags which I personnally prefer over the mesh/woven bags.

If Reading was cheaper than Blaschak I would would burn Reading without reservation. Just so happens that where I buy my coal, the price is the same per ton for both.

SMITTY · Post by **SMITTY** » Sun. Dec. 13, 2009 12:35 am

No experience with Reading, but I can compare to Kimmels.

First year with Blashak bagged nut -- burned Kimmels bagged nut the past 4 seasons. I was never able to achieve a 24 hour burn ... not even close with Kimmels. It would ash up & snuff the fire out around the 15 - 20 hour mark. If running real hot, it would be done in 13. If I did make it to 24, there would literally be 3 dull orange coals lit! With this Blashak, I can easily hit 24 hours ... even with stove body temps well over 450°. Running low during the warmer weather, I hit the 36 hour mark!

I agree about the ash ... it's very powdery. At least 1/3 to 1/4 of the pan less ash too. VERY happy with it.

Cyber36 · Post by **Cyber36** » Tue. Dec. 15, 2009 1:57 pm

Smitty, you can go 24 hours on your handfired? I can't risk going over 13. How big is your firebox??

Perky · Post by **Perky** » Tue. Dec. 15, 2009 7:13 pm

Been burning Reading for years....pea and currently nut and pea. I'm quite pleased with it

Burns down to a powder for the most part. Buy it non-bagged. Haven't encountered too much "stuff" in it, an occasional small piece of wood or leaf. Never tried Blaschak.

SMITTY · Post by **SMITTY** » Fri. Dec. 18, 2009 9:56 am

Cyber36 wrote:Smitty, you can go 24 hours on your handfired? I can't risk going over 13. How big is your firebox??

It's 21" Wide x 14.5" long x about 9" deep at the deepest point. Those are rough measurements taken outside the stove, & factoring in stove / firebrick thicknesses. It's a little too hot to get my hands inside for an accurate measurement!

I was never able to get this long of a burn with the coal I used the past 4 seasons. This batch I got this year is above & beyond the other in terms of overall quality.

smokeyCityTeacher · Post by **smokeyCityTeacher** » Mon. Dec. 28, 2009 5:45 pm

wlape3 wrote:Depends on what type of coal. When I used to buy pea the reading coal didn't burn as well as the blaschak and had more clinkers. This was coal purchased in bulk. If you are looking at blaschak in bags vs reading in bags I can't help you there. I'm not fond of the plastic bags blaschak comes in but I've never used reading bags except stuff that was bagged at the dealer (100 lb bags of pea).

I burn Reading 50# bags (not 40#). It burns to a white ash with big granola size chunks in it. Occasionally I find little strips of wood in it. All in all it does burn to completion w/out a lot of clunkers.
Im not getting great burn time with it though and I wanna try "Superior" coal.

aseecobra · Post by **aseecobra** » Tue. Dec. 29, 2009 1:16 am

I've been burning Blashack until last week when I bought some bags of Reading. Here is what I noticed:

Price: Reading was cheaper.
Water: Blaschak minimal, Reading had allot. I noticed the Reading bags didn't have holes in the bags and Blaschak does.
Foreign Matter: Reading had allot of non-coal items and fines that I haven't experienced with Blaschak.
Other Observations: Stirring the Reading coal in my stoves hopper after it dries out left allot of coal residue on my hand and created a coal dust cloud. The Blaschak coal didn't behave that way.
Burning: I haven't observed any clinkers or other differences between them.

Chris

lowfog01 · Post by **lowfog01** » Tue. Dec. 29, 2009 8:03 am

I use both brands; always have because that's all I can get within 100 miles. It's been 4 years now. Obviously, I have nothing to compare it to but I'm not dissatisfied either. I'm burning a mix of both at about 35 or 40 lbs a day and getting about 3 lbs of ash. Remember, I'm not a math person but I think that's around 10% ash. I only have to empty the ashpan once a day and the Mark II ashpan is small. Both brands bags leak and are wet coming out of the bag, plan for it and you'll be fine. Both brands burn equally well and last year I got an extended burn out of the Blaschak pea for 36 hours with plenty of fire left. On the other hand the Reading nut can really warm a room up fast although it does have more debris in it. I found a squished can once. I've had good results layering it nut, pea, nut which gives me a slower, hotter burn. It works. The Blaschak pea is a roughly a dollar or two more a bag then Reading nut. If told I could get just one brand and size I'd go with the Blaschak pea because it is more flexible in my situation; not that the Reading was bad coal. I hope this helps. Lisa