|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
Bodger
Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 13524
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46247 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
wellington womble
Joined: 08 Nov 2004 Posts: 15051 Location: East Midlands
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 16 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
I think you definitely get what you pay for with stoves. Living in rented houses has meant I've used a few over the last few years, and they've mostly been crap compared to the expensive one I bought. Much more difficult to light, a lot less controlable and impossible to keep burning all night. And cleaning out has been hard in some, to (although at least you can vet that when you buy)
The first one was fab. Easy to light, really easy to control, light on wood use, could be loaded up and left burning all night, piece of cake to clean. Worth every penny (bought a good 15 years ago before they were fashionable. I don't think there were any cheap imports then!). Just wish I could remember what it was. I want to say a Forrester, but I don't think that's quite right. I wonder if I posted about it somewhere?
Edit: the good woodburner predates Downsizer (imagine that! No wonder I've no idea. I've been using DS as external memory for 11 years) but a bit of reading has rung dusty bells and I think it was a Charnwood. Which is why it makes me think of forests - Charnwood Forest, near where I grew up. It was very traditional though, not one of those ultra slick modern looking ones. |
|
|
|
|
Woo
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 Posts: 787 Location: Mayenne, Pays de Loire
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamH
Joined: 23 May 2015 Posts: 523
|
|
|
|
|
wellington womble
Joined: 08 Nov 2004 Posts: 15051 Location: East Midlands
|
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 16 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
Woo wrote: |
getting what you pay for is one way of looking at it. surely it depends what you can afford? |
Ultimately, yes it depends on how much you can spend. But there may be different circumstances. If you need to urgently replace a nonfunctional wood burner and it's your main heating/hot water you may have to settle for what the money you have in the bank right now will pay for.
If you have the luxury of waiting and are able to save (or possibly if you able to utilise credit) it may be worth paying more for a more efficient one, which will last longer or save on wood (depending on where you get your wood) or own your own time. If the woodburner is such a pain to light that you switch on the heating instead, you aren't exactly benefiting from it. Or if it can't be left in overnight and you need supplementary heating in the morning, you aren't saving money. If it breaks down in considerably less time you will have to replace it, possibly spending more than you might have on a higher quality one and still having to put up with a woodburner which isn't meeting your needs in the meantime. Tis the Captain Vimes Boots Theory of Economics.
Dinner parties don't come into it. I couldn't give a monkeys what anyone else thinks. I want a product that works for me with the minimum amount of inconvenience. I'll happily spend more (and save longer for) good design that works well and lasts well, and I think they save money in the long term. I only mentioned a brand because I know it worked well. I realise not everyone is in a position to, or prefers to choose to spend money to get better product, AND that a more expensive product isn't necessarily better, or better enough to justify its price difference. But in my experience, in the case of woodburners, it absolutely is. Which was the question. |
|
|
|
|
Woo
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 Posts: 787 Location: Mayenne, Pays de Loire
|
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011 Posts: 15998
|
|
|
|
|
Bodger
Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 13524
|
|
|
|
|
onemanband
Joined: 26 Dec 2010 Posts: 1473 Location: NCA90
|
|
|
|
|
Ty Gwyn
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 Posts: 4613 Location: Lampeter
|
|
|
|
|
Bodger
Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 13524
|
|
|
|
|
Bodger
Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 13524
|
|
|
|
|
Bodger
Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 13524
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46247 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
|