New Stove Question

That name would be Gem Dockash...damn beer making me misspell!

Misspelled the name. Gem Dockash, made in PA...damn beer made me spell it wrong.

Can't tell what it's got for grates in that one photo. Kinda mis-leading ad - top says $800 and in the text says 1400 or best offer. I'd have to see what the grates in it are and what condition. If it's got prismatic grates then I'd like it. I'm not much of a fan of the flat kind, but folks do well with those too... Without photos of the inside, knowing if the doors close tight, no cracks anywhere in any of the castings, gotta see the condition of the fire pot, hard to assess... I don't recognize the name...

dj

I talked to the guy this evening, he said he thinks they are prismatic grates, there are no cracks anywhere. I am going to look at it on Sunday...I questioned him about the price, he reduced it from $1400 from his original post to $800. He said he is firm about the 800.00 price. I will be looking for cracks in the fire pot.

He said this stove has been in his family for years, he remembered it from a kid.

Gorgeous looking piece. If it's not broken, looks like the deal of the century. good luck. (Especially moving it.). Can't imagine what it weighs.

Yeah, I think I am going to have to pull in all kinds of favors from friends or relatives to help with the move.

The owner said it was always well taken care of, they cleaned it out each spring and put baking soda in the pot to counter act the sulpher from the coal. (They burned a mix of wood and coal) For this year, I think some chrome polish and some stove polish will bring her back to life.

They aren't too bad to move. They come apart in many pieces. All the doors come off, all the trim comes off, the stove barrel can be separated from the fire pot etc... Fire pot usually is the heaviest section... I've broken down and moved my Glenwood probably hundreds of times.... When I was younger, I moved it alone. Now I get help... must be getting more and more lazy with age.... Last time I moved it there were two of us..

dj

Photog200 wrote:Yeah, I think I am going to have to pull in all kinds of favors from friends or relatives to help with the move.

The owner said it was always well taken care of, they cleaned it out each spring and put baking soda in the pot to counter act the sulpher from the coal. (They burned a mix of wood and coal) For this year, I think some chrome polish and some stove polish will bring her back to life.

Check out the things I mentioned in your other thread about this stove. Indirect back pipe is very desirable for these and ant coal. It elongates the flame path similar to a base heater or burner. Prismatic grates are preferable because they shake easy and fast compared to round dump type. They would 4 bars in pairs of two with a crank to shake each pair. Sounds like the fire pot is unlined since he says he washes with soda. You would want to line it with refractory if you plan to use coal. It will last forever that way. Measure the diameter when you check that pot too. I think it's a 16" pot since he states 18" barrel. That would be the same size as the Glenwood Modern Oak 116 in my avatar picture. Grate stove and that size will handle your size needs with ease. You'll be able to burn it right in the sweet spot and not have to push it at all. Hope it has the back pipe. The good news is that it's been used recently and is good to go with the exception of the liner.
I think those Gems were made by the Floyd Wells company. Same folks who made the Bengal cookstoves.

I asked the owner if the stove pipe exits out the top or the back and he said he was not sure. He is going to go look at it and call me later today. It would be a shame for it to come out the top with that nice nickel finish on top. He said it was about a year since it was last used. Can't wait to see it tomorrow!

When I google the name I get the info that it was made by the Scranton Stove Works in PA...that's all the info I know about the history of it.

Photog200 wrote:I asked the owner if the stove pipe exits out the top or the back and he said he was not sure. He is going to go look at it and call me later today. It would be a shame for it to come out the top with that nice nickel finish on top. He said it was about a year since it was last used. Can't wait to see it tomorrow!

When I google the name I get the info that it was made by the Scranton Stove Works in PA...that's all the info I know about the history of it.

I wouldn't worry, there are advantages both ways. Re-circulation gives you nice efficiency with coal, but with the pipe off the top back the stove works a lot better when running wood. Loss in efficiency is not that noticeable. The one thing I did notice that makes the base burner nicer is how the heat comes out lower, you can feel it on your feet where the top pipe models don't get the heat down that low... Back when I was running these stoves on wood only, the top pipe versions were far and above better than the base burner on wood... If I were to have a top pipe version with prismatic grates, I'd definitely run wood in the shoulder months and then coal in the cold part of the winter. It would probably be a better heat system for the entire season.

The base burners are nice, but they aren't perfect..

dj

dlj, that is what I was planning to do with the stove is early fall and spring burn wood and then switch to coal when you need the overnight burns. I am planning on buying this stove as long as there are no cracks or other obvious damage. The main thing I am hoping for is for the grates to be prismatic...fingers are crossed.

Photog200 wrote:dlj, that is what I was planning to do with the stove is early fall and spring burn wood and then switch to coal when you need the overnight burns. I am planning on buying this stove as long as there are no cracks or other obvious damage. The main thing I am hoping for is for the grates to be prismatic...fingers are crossed.

Then you will do better with a top pipe rather than a base burner in my opinion. If you plan on using wood with any consistency, the top pipe is better. You'll loose some efficiency burning coal, but the improvement in wood performance would be preferred, at least for me... Like I said, if I was going to seriously use wood during any part of the heating season, I'd rather the top pipe stove than the base burner stove. I almost sold my Glenwood years ago specifically for this reason. Now that I run pretty much coal only (I will occasionally use wood) I'm very glad I didn't sell it... In fact, the reason I don't look at wood for the shoulder months is specifically because of the lesser performance of this stove burning wood. It's not so much that it burns it poorly, but that the stove tends to smoke during start-ups and large re-loads. I really don't like getting smoke in my house. Once the fire is well established it burns both fuels well. I spent years -decades in fact -heating with wood in these kinds of stoves. I've owned my Glenwood since I was a young teenager. I've put it up against many different stoves through the years. Burning coal it's top of the list. Burning wood not even close...

dj

dlj wrote:

Photog200 wrote:dlj, that is what I was planning to do with the stove is early fall and spring burn wood and then switch to coal when you need the overnight burns. I am planning on buying this stove as long as there are no cracks or other obvious damage. The main thing I am hoping for is for the grates to be prismatic...fingers are crossed.

Then you will do better with a top pipe rather than a base burner in my opinion. If you plan on using wood with any consistency, the top pipe is better. You'll loose some efficiency burning coal, but the improvement in wood performance would be preferred, at least for me... Like I said, if I was going to seriously use wood during any part of the heating season, I'd rather the top pipe stove than the base burner stove. I almost sold my Glenwood years ago specifically for this reason. Now that I run pretty much coal only (I will occasionally use wood) I'm very glad I didn't sell it... In fact, the reason I don't look at wood for the shoulder months is specifically because of the lesser performance of this stove burning wood. It's not so much that it burns it poorly, but that the stove tends to smoke during start-ups and large re-loads. I really don't like getting smoke in my house. Once the fire is well established it burns both fuels well. I spent years -decades in fact -heating with wood in these kinds of stoves. I've owned my Glenwood since I was a young teenager. I've put it up against many different stoves through the years. Burning coal it's top of the list. Burning wood not even close...

dj

I was considering coal a couple of years ago but due to environmental concerns I decided against it. Recently I started doing more research about burning coal and discovered the difference between bituminous and anthracite and found that my environmental concerns were tied to bituminous. Since the emissions from anthracite is about the same as fuel oil or NG I do not have a problem burning it now. I started looking for new stoves that would burn both wood and coal and the only ones I found were square, boxy, and ugly. I would not want one in my living room. I found Will's videos on Youtube and saw the Glenwood, I thought, this is the stove I want. It is efficient and nice looking too. Once I get use to burning coal, I will probably burn that more often than wood. As I am getting older, I will probably enjoy the less work from the coal stove, yet have the same kind of warm heat in the winter.

Photog200 wrote:I was considering coal a couple of years ago but due to environmental concerns I decided against it. Recently I started doing more research about burning coal and discovered the difference between bituminous and anthracite and found that my environmental concerns were tied to bituminous. Since the emissions from anthracite is about the same as fuel oil or NG I do not have a problem burning it now. I started looking for new stoves that would burn both wood and coal and the only ones I found were square, boxy, and ugly. I would not want one in my living room. I found Will's videos on Youtube and saw the Glenwood, I thought, this is the stove I want. It is efficient and nice looking too. Once I get use to burning coal, I will probably burn that more often than wood. As I am getting older, I will probably enjoy the less work from the coal stove, yet have the same kind of warm heat in the winter.

I burned wood for a long time... I'll never go back now if I can avoid it. Coal is much easier to use, much cleaner than wood, and these old bones don't need all the work associated with wood. Now, if I had a nice wood lot where I could get all the wood I wanted then I might set up to burn wood in the shoulder months, but I'd certainly not go back to doing it all winter long. I also might just sell the wood to pay for coal... Anthracite is so much better. Not only will you enjoy the less work, you'll enjoy the much more even heat, ease of running the fire and the cleaner house...

I don't know of a modern stove that burns both wood and coal as well as these older stoves. Of course, burning wood they aren't anywhere near as good as a well made modern wood burning stove, but they will give you lots of heat. For coal, well, the base heaters run very efficiently so do the modern coal stoves. If I had to buy a coal stove, I'd almost be flipping a coin on that decision unless I wanted a stoker.

dj

dlj wrote:

Photog200 wrote:I was considering coal a couple of years ago but due to environmental concerns I decided against it. Recently I started doing more research about burning coal and discovered the difference between bituminous and anthracite and found that my environmental concerns were tied to bituminous. Since the emissions from anthracite is about the same as fuel oil or NG I do not have a problem burning it now. I started looking for new stoves that would burn both wood and coal and the only ones I found were square, boxy, and ugly. I would not want one in my living room. I found Will's videos on Youtube and saw the Glenwood, I thought, this is the stove I want. It is efficient and nice looking too. Once I get use to burning coal, I will probably burn that more often than wood. As I am getting older, I will probably enjoy the less work from the coal stove, yet have the same kind of warm heat in the winter.

I burned wood for a long time... I'll never go back now if I can avoid it. Coal is much easier to use, much cleaner than wood, and these old bones don't need all the work associated with wood. Now, if I had a nice wood lot where I could get all the wood I wanted then I might set up to burn wood in the shoulder months, but I'd certainly not go back to doing it all winter long. I also might just sell the wood to pay for coal... Anthracite is so much better. Not only will you enjoy the less work, you'll enjoy the much more even heat, ease of running the fire and the cleaner house...

I don't know of a modern stove that burns both wood and coal as well as these older stoves. Of course, burning wood they aren't anywhere near as good as a well made modern wood burning stove, but they will give you lots of heat. For coal, well, the base heaters run very efficiently so do the modern coal stoves. If I had to buy a coal stove, I'd almost be flipping a coin on that decision unless I wanted a stoker.

dj

After I get the stove you can be sure I will be asking questions on here about a multitude of things. I know I will have to find out where I can find the refractory cement so I can line the fire pot. I am sure other questions will pop up when I get into the restoration. This forum will be a huge help for me being very new to coal burning. Thank you for helping out!