Since this thread started because of HJ's question to me I suppose it would be nice for me to make a comment or two (plus, how can I refrain from commenting on an interesting topic?). Juhirvon gave a quick rundown on the advantages of a wood stove.

Every day in the field for the first 20+ years I built a squaw wood fire (dead pine branches from the lower part of a living tree) to, as one of my mentors called it in his New England accent "boil the noon kettle". In the Rockies of the time it was simply a matter of taking the last couple of minutes before lunch to collect a double handful of wood no larger than your thumb, gathering 3 rocks and in 5 min or so the kettle was boiling. By the time lunch was over, the fire was out and cool, a little water and turning the rocks over and placing them where they were in the first place. As I began to travel and work in other areas - particularly the Antarctic and the tundra of Alaska a stove became necessary and a 123 became a regular part of my kit. The use of fire in the Rockies was becomming less favorable and I began to use the stove there as well. I later added an XGK for travel for the fuel availablilty, but used the 123 (and now a Pocket Rocket) for day trips and light overnights.

I still think there are many times where a contained wood fire is OK and I prefer the sounds, smells and ambiance of a wood fire. My thoughts on a wood stove (and I have little experience with one) like a canteen cup stove or the Vargo is that I could use it more often than a rock circle and with less cleanup. That would be a + in my mind. I brought it up here because I can always get good information from the group to help with such decisions.

Respectfully,

Jerry