Andersens woodwright do have more of a wood interior. The structural performance is higher on the original 400 series TW where as the woodwrights will let more air through. So if you want the looks, get woodwright. If you want better performance, get the other. Also the exteriors of the sashes are not perma shield vinyl cladding. Good luck

I can't compare Andersen with Pella or any others, or the 200 series v. the 400 series, but I bought Anderson double hung windows and a sliding door, and I am sorely disappointed in them. I paid a LOT, esp. or the door. I had no choice but to get the top of the line because I had to get the bronze exterior color. The screens on the windows are flimsy. The hangers for the screen sliding door are plastic and break all the time. I've had problems with a new lock I installed on the sliding doors in December since December…. I would not buy Andersen again. But for all I know, the others are the same. I and so anti-corporate America right now. The greed is out of control; the mentality of cutting on quality in order to increase profits is anathema to me, but that's what they're doing, everywhere.

On what basis do you state that I'm incorrect? I've been working with windows for many years, and have been an Andersen service tech in particular for the past 11+ years. Windows happen to be quite inefficient in the scheme of things-when you look at a VERY good window being an R-Value of maybe 4(approximate for a CK with std LowE glass), and the walls & ceilings are significantly higher than that...no matter how you parse it, 1/2" of airspace between two panes of 1/8" glass are just not going to be able to keep out cold/heat the same as 5.5" of blown in insulation. In addition, the windows the OPer is referring to would be from approximately the 1989 vintage. The only major thing that changed in the run of NLs from 1968 until last year when they stopped production is the glass. So if we were to use your premise as a guide-we're using a window from 1968, because you are claiming the glass doesn't make that big of a difference. That's 45 years ago, we've come a LONG way in all things beyond the glass as well. If you know a lot about the industry in 1989, you know that spacer technology has come a long way since then, and LowE is able to make full use of the argon now as opposed to back then. Also, the CK comes standard with LowE4, and all options are rated even higher. When you consider that a double-pane glass unit is rated roughly a .49 U-Factor(roughly 2 R-value), but jumping to a LowE unit brings that down to a .25(roughly 4 R-value), wouldn't you see where I get my disagreement with you? If you also look at the rest of the post, I explain the difference between the jambliner system of the NL and the CK series. But the bottom line is, I'm not just going off of basic physics & numbers, which support replacing them with the CKs-I am also going off of what our customers say & experience months & years down the road. Especially what they say about the comfort & utility bills. I agree, they aren't really points of opinion-a house built in 1989 is very very likely to be as insulated as it can be without tearing out all drywall & redoing it. There is actually very little 'sealing' to be done in a house that modern, either. Have you ever looked at the thermal image of a house in the dead of winter? I can tell you this-it's coolest around windows & doors. So it comes down to making sure that the big culprits for energy loss-windows & doors-are as up to date & well-designed as possible. But if you still think you're right, I'd be interested to hear your position-and not in a facetous way, I like to have discussion about something others disagree on.

Oh that’s not true - we ordered ours as a custom 400, but here is the thing - with the custom size and ours being non-operable it did indeed end up with a different series number, however the base features were the 400 series. It was inserted into a brick wall in a reno of a 1969 rancher without much adieu. When I get home I’ll look at our invoice and tell you what the ‘custom’ version was, so you have a starting point of what to ask for. But we had a funky size, frosted glass, non-operable with the trim level, UV rating, and detail of the 400s. I do not believe it was woodwright, but let me verify. The sticker said 400 though :) Excuse the lack of trim, this was while we were still shimming :)