Jump to content


Welcome to the eG Forums!

These forums are a service of the Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to advancement of the culinary arts. Anyone can read the forums, however if you would like to participate in active discussions please join the Society.

Photo

High-end Cookware - What you get for the money


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Porthos

Porthos
  • participating member
  • 1,072 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 12 February 2010 - 11:04 PM

I've read various threads about which cookware various members would recommend. I don't own All-Clad or Sitram or any of the other higher-end pans that get discussed. For a point of reference I've been cooking for over 40 years. I own mainly Vollrath Pro-HG and Revere pots and pans. What differences would I expect to see if I started adding higher-end saute' and sauce pans to my kitchen. Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

Porthos Potwatcher
The Unrelenting Carnivore
"If every pork chop was perfect, we wouldn't have hot dogs." (source unknown)
Customer to clerk in a clothing store, "Do you have these in a size for people who actually eat?"


#2 David A. Goldfarb

David A. Goldfarb
  • participating member
  • 1,307 posts
  • Location:Honolulu, HI

Posted 13 February 2010 - 06:58 AM

I have two Sitram Catering (now called "Pro 2") frypans. They have a 2.5mm copper disk bottom, so they distribute heat very evenly, at least across the bottom, like heavy copperware. There are no hotspots as long as you don't set the flame larger than the diameter of the disk (in which case you can get some burning around the sides of the pan), so can use a smaller flame more efficiently, and you don't have to pay quite as much attention to it, if you're trying to do several tasks at once. You shouldn't walk away from a pan of onions for five minutes, but if you did, you could come back and there wouldn't be any disasters. Sitram is also extremely durable, so you can do pretty much anything you want to it without concern about warping, clean it with cleanser if needed, and if you have heavy black polymerized oil on the outside, just spray it with oven cleaner, and it comes right off without damaging the pan.

#3 mbhank

mbhank
  • participating member
  • 143 posts
  • Location:Torrance, CA

Posted 13 February 2010 - 07:28 AM

If you've been cooking for 40 years you may be perfectly satisfied with what you have now. If you were going to upgrade David's advice is good.

I have All Clad stainless and no stick skillets. The finish is so fine on the regular stainless that they clean up almost as fast as a no stick and the heft provides an even heat distribution,
'A person's integrity is never more tested than when he has power over a voiceless creature.' A C Grayling.

#4 Dakki

Dakki
  • participating member
  • 1,047 posts

Posted 13 February 2010 - 08:43 AM

Calphalon fry- and saucepans, Lodge skillets and no-name (I want to say Vasconia or Tramontina but I'm honestly not sure) stainless pots here, plus assorted stuff from garage sales and the Goodwill.

I think bottom of the barrel, supermarket stovetop stuff is hard to use since it develops hotspots, plus usually it has a nasty nonstick coating that gets scratched off, ruins your browning and may release small amounts of toxic gas when overheated; once you get to "serious" cookware, however, the law of diminishing returns kicks in very quickly, and you'll get a pretty marginal improvement (if any) as you raise your budget. Pots are less critical since you probably won't heat them as much, or while they're empty, and you can always brown on a skillet and just transfer the stuff to the pot to finish cooking in liquid.

Not familiar with Vollrath Pro-HG or Revere so I won't presume to comment on any specific improvements you could get from changing, but hey, if it ain't broke...

All that said I like the looks of that Sitram stuff and would love to give it a try.
This is my skillet. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My skillet is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it, as I must master my life. Without me my skillet is useless. Without my skillet, I am useless. I must season my skillet well. I will. Before God I swear this creed. My skillet and myself are the makers of my meal. We are the masters of our kitchen. So be it, until there are no ingredients, but dinner. Amen.

#5 JAZ

JAZ
  • manager
  • 4,901 posts
  • Location:Atlanta

Posted 13 February 2010 - 08:51 AM

When I cook in rental kitchens, which generally have old, inexpensive cookware, the two things I notice most are hot spots and warped bottoms. I have to be very careful not to heat the pans over medium to avoid scorching.

They also seem to be harder to clean, but that might just be a result of stuff burned onto the bottoms.

If your cookware doesn't present either of these problems, then you might not notice a huge difference cooking with higher end stuff. But it could be that you're so used to making allowances for the cookware that you don't even notice its problems. That happened to me when I started to acquire higher quality cookware -- I hadn't realized how temperamental the old stuff was because I used to it.

On the other hand, the difference was nothing like what I experienced when I got good knives for the first time. To this day, I'd much rather cook with inexpensive pots and pans than cheap knives.

#6 paulraphael

paulraphael
  • participating member
  • 2,973 posts

Posted 13 February 2010 - 09:42 AM

Most low-end cookware is a pain to cook on ... at least for tasks like sautéing and saucemaking. But I find the difference between medium- and high-end stuff to be more a matter of luxury than necessity. When I'm cooking in other people's kitchens, I have more trouble with not being able to find pans of the right size / shape than with quality. You can usually compensate for a bad pan by giving it more attention, more stirring, more motion, etc... And a decent pan can be functionally as good as a great pan; it just might not be as pleasureable to use. When you're busy, you probably won't even notice.

For some tasks, you might find yourself developing a preferance. Some types of pan are slower/ steadier, other are faster / more responsive. Each set of qualities has its pros and cons. And don't discount the value of familiarity. You've had your pans a long time; you know how they behave. For a given task, a $300 piece of french copper may or may not feel better to you.

#7 Porthos

Porthos
  • participating member
  • 1,072 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 13 February 2010 - 10:34 AM

Not familiar with Vollrath Pro-HG or ...



Heavy-gauge aluminum with a titanium-ceramic non-stick coating which takes much higher temperatures than teflon. They are also NSF approved so they clean up well.

Porthos Potwatcher
The Unrelenting Carnivore
"If every pork chop was perfect, we wouldn't have hot dogs." (source unknown)
Customer to clerk in a clothing store, "Do you have these in a size for people who actually eat?"


#8 mgaretz

mgaretz
  • participating member
  • 737 posts

Posted 13 February 2010 - 10:54 AM

I used to be a detractor of high end cookware but I have become a convert to All-Clad. Three reasons:

1) It cooks more evenly - for the first time I was able to sauté onions and not have them half burnt/half uncooked.

2) I like their look and feel and therefore I enjoy using them more.

3) Easier to clean than aluminum (anodized or not).

If I get more enjoyment and less frustration when I'm cooking, the extra expense (especially when spread across the years I'll own them) is worth it!

#9 budrichard

budrichard
  • participating member
  • 1,710 posts

Posted 13 February 2010 - 11:22 AM

Your cookware should match your heat source. If you use electric residential rnage, then I don't think you will miss much with whatever you use. If you have a high heat source such as a gas range with 15KBTU+ burners, than good commercial copper(2.5mm) can change temperature faster, convey more heat to your food and you feel more in control. There are other types of high end ranges but I haven't used them with copper. The downside of commercial weight copper cookware is just that, the weight of the larger pieces is too much for many individuals. If your range and current cookware satisfy your needs, then stick with them.-Dick

#10 slkinsey

slkinsey
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 11,104 posts
  • Location:New York, New York

Posted 13 February 2010 - 11:52 AM

This is a hard question to answer, exactly. One can point to certain performance characteristics that will improve in the cookware. But whether this makes much difference to you is another question entirely. After all, upgrading from a Toyota to a Ferrari comes along with some increased performance characteristics, but the Stig will still be able to drive the Toyota faster and better than I can drive the Ferrari. And it might be impossible to notice the difference between the two cars if I do all my driving on a dirt road or in heavy traffic.
Samuel Lloyd Kinsey

#11 Blether

Blether
  • participating member
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:Tokyo

Posted 13 February 2010 - 09:00 PM

I've read various threads about which cookware various members would recommend. I don't own All-Clad or Sitram or any of the other higher-end pans that get discussed. For a point of reference I've been cooking for over 40 years. I own mainly Vollrath Pro-HG and Revere pots and pans. What differences would I expect to see if I started adding higher-end saute' and sauce pans to my kitchen. Any insights would be greatly appreciated.


First of all, function. Almost ten years ago, before I joined eGullet, I read somewhere (here ? A Cook's Wares dot com) that for even heat distribution in the sizes of typical kitchenware, IIRC you need a 2mm thickness of copper, or a 5mm thickness of aluminium. Copper and Aluminium, in that order, are the most conductive metals that are practical for cookware. As well as spreading heat evenly, conductivity means they will respond more quickly to changes in the heat you're applying to them. A stainless pan with a 2mm copper base is lighter than the same pan with a 5mm Aluminium base; all-copper pans are heavy.

I like stainless steel best as a cooking surface. I understand that Aluminium is softer so scratches more easily; it also reacts more readily with acids.

I can see the point of clad cookware for an electric stove. Otherwise, I can't.

Do you have a saute pan already ? I hadn't used one or dreamed of doing so, but got one (that I thought I could always chuck) when I bought a cookware set. It's now one of my favourite pans, for having a wide cooking surface (more so than a frypan), higher sides to stop splatter, and plenty of volume (again, much more than a frypan).

Functionally, that covers the optimums. It's been pointed out on eG before that high-end restaurants are often producing high-end food on basic, bulk-buy pans.

Second, fashion. In the first place, the cost of heavy advertising will account for maybe 7% - 15% of a product's selling price. Then, as with so many other products, you can pay more and more, and all the gains are intangible - cachet, feeling, satisfaction. Maybe there are social benefits in owning the same thing as certain other people. How you value these things is a personal decision.

#12 butterscotch

butterscotch
  • participating member
  • 244 posts

Posted 13 February 2010 - 09:51 PM

Well Im gld I bought an allclad last month instead of a cheapie because my cat turned on the burner full on while I was at work and the heat was on for hours, my apt would have burned down. the allclad wasn;t even scorched.

#13 Blether

Blether
  • participating member
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:Tokyo

Posted 13 February 2010 - 10:18 PM

And the edit option's expired !

I can see the point of clad cookware for an electric stove, and for cats. Otherwise, I can't.

#14 ScoopKW

ScoopKW
  • participating member
  • 1,037 posts
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 13 February 2010 - 10:55 PM

I have All Clad Cop*R*Chef that I bought on eBay for diddly-squat. ($50 for two pots and a 10" fry, with copper lids. Yes, I realize that's almost criminal. It took three hours to get the crud off of them. Still, score!)

I made a pound of Beurre Noisette for the first time today and nailed it because the 1 quart pot is super responsive. As soon as I could smell it, I was able to stop the cooking just by lifting the pot off the fire. When I was using crap cookware, I often made beurre noisette or, worse, "beurre carbonne" by trying to clarify butter and screwing it up. I haven't ruined any beurre since acquiring the copper pots.

And as mentioned above, browning onions is a joy. Definitely worth the $50.
Who cares how time advances? I am drinking ale today. -- Edgar Allan Poe

#15 cbread

cbread
  • participating member
  • 272 posts

Posted 14 February 2010 - 12:05 AM

... I can see the point of clad cookware for an electric stove. Otherwise, I can't...

I see it just the other way round. On electric, who cares since the heat is hitting just from the bottom so clad doesn't offer any benefit. With gas, and especially a stove with big powerful burners, clad extending all the way up the sides keeps the sides from getting burnt by flames heating up the sides.

The even response of better pans makes a big difference in how much you have to babysit pans. I got some heavy clad pans and can just about ignore them. They are considerably more forgiving. It lets me turn my attention to other items and get more done with my limited attention.

#16 Blether

Blether
  • participating member
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:Tokyo

Posted 14 February 2010 - 12:13 AM

My take is that on gas, you regulate the flame to stay within the bottom disc - if you need a bigger flame, you need a bigger pan (even with a clad pan, there's a limit to how much more heat you can put in by running the flame to or round the very edge).

An electric ring gives you less control of the width (diameter) of the heat source, when you use a small pan. A clad pan will fare better with an inevitable heat overlap.

Disc bottoms solve the baby-sitting problem just as well as clad pans.

#17 slkinsey

slkinsey
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 11,104 posts
  • Location:New York, New York

Posted 14 February 2010 - 07:59 AM

My take is that on gas, you regulate the flame to stay within the bottom disc - if you need a bigger flame, you need a bigger pan (even with a clad pan, there's a limit to how much more heat you can put in by running the flame to or round the very edge).

An electric ring gives you less control of the width (diameter) of the heat source, when you use a small pan. A clad pan will fare better with an inevitable heat overlap.

Disc bottoms solve the baby-sitting problem just as well as clad pans.

There is some confusion of terminology here.

"Clad" simply means that the thermal/reactive material is covered with a thin layer or layers of nonreactive material. There are fully clad (often called "encapsulated") disk-bottom designs. Things like enameled cast iron could also be considered "clad." A better word for this is probably "lined" rather than "clad."

The main differentiation in cookware designs is between "straight gauge" cookware, where the materials and material thickness is the same throughout the cookware, and "disk-bottom" where the thermal material is only on the bottom of the pan. Straight-gauge cookware may or may not be lined on one or both sides. This design extends from the least to the most expensive cookware. Cheapo aluminum or stainless cookware? Straight gauge. Carbon steel? Straight gauge. Stainless lined aluminum? Straight gauge. Stainless lined heavy copper? Straight gauge.


For many cooking tasks, straight-gauge design is not needed. Sauté pans, stock pots, rondeaux, and sufficiently large saucepans for heating thin liquids do not particularly benefit from a straight-gauge design, and in many cases a disk-bottom design is better. Indeed, in many cases, such as pans that will be used to boil water to steam vegetables, etc. there is no need for anything fancier than cheap stainless steel. Frypans, smaller saucepans on gas stoves, and reduction pans all do benefit from a straight-gauge design.
Samuel Lloyd Kinsey

#18 Blether

Blether
  • participating member
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:Tokyo

Posted 14 February 2010 - 08:32 AM

Hi, Sam. First of all, respect to you for writing the eG book - the eGCI course - on cookware.

I think we're happy enough that we're talking about encapsulated-disk-bottom pans on the one hand, compared with All-clad and its imitators on the other.

Worst of all, though, I simply can't agree with you that

Frypans, smaller saucepans on gas stoves, and reduction pans all do benefit from a straight-gauge design


- except that if by smaller saucepans you mean less than 12cm across (small gas ring flame width, in this country at any rate) - and even then I can't see why you say particularly gas rather than electricity. Frypans and reduction pans ? No :sad:

Edited by Blether, 14 February 2010 - 08:32 AM.


#19 Shalmanese

Shalmanese
  • participating member
  • 3,419 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 14 February 2010 - 09:09 AM

One area where quality cookware *really* helps is searing something that's been rubbed, especially with something coarse. During the course of searing, bits of the rub are going to fall off into the pan. On a cheap pan, everywhere the meat isn't touching is going to overheat and burn whatever is touching it, making it impossible to deglaze the drippings. On a good pan, the heat will stay relatively constant across the entire pan, ensuring attractive meat and good pan drippings.
PS: I am a guy.

#20 slkinsey

slkinsey
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 11,104 posts
  • Location:New York, New York

Posted 14 February 2010 - 10:26 AM

Worst of all, though, I simply can't agree with you that

Frypans, smaller saucepans on gas stoves, and reduction pans all do benefit from a straight-gauge design


- except that if by smaller saucepans you mean less than 12cm across (small gas ring flame width, in this country at any rate) - and even then I can't see why you say particularly gas rather than electricity. Frypans and reduction pans ? No :sad:


On my CrapMaster 5000 NYC apartment stove, the flame is around 13 cm across with no pan, and spreads to around 16.5 cm when a pan is put down on the grate. My observation is that there is some benefit for pans up to about 20 cm in diameter, but probably not much benefit with respect to this one particular issue above that. This issue can, of course, be largely mitigated with a disk-bottom pan where the disk extend the full diameter of the pan. But on a cost basis those pans don't tend to be much less expensive than straight gauge.

The reason why I say gas rather than electricity is because there is very little reason ever to use a straight gauge pan on an electric stove. This is because heat is only conducted from the electric heating element into the pan by physical contact. Since the "unprotected" edge of a disk-bottom pan is not contacting the heating element, there is no risk of this part of the pan overheating and scorching. I regularly melt sugar into a very dark caramel using my straight gauge saucepans, and this is something I would not be comfortable doing in my similarly-sized disk-bottom designs.

There are a number of reasons why straight gauge is good for true frypans -- and by "true frypans" I mean pans with short sides at a wide slope. Many so-called "frypans" nowadays have deep sides that quickly become more or less vertical, and these are closer to what I might call a "curved sauté pan" than a frypan. A proper frypan should have a shape like this, not like this. The advantage to having straight gauge for a true frypan is that you would like to be able to heat the pan all the way to the edge and even a bit up the side so that food items in the pan will cook evenly no matter how close to the sides they may be. The short, widely-sloping sides are important because they make it easier for steam to escape, which facilitates crisping (the whole point of frying). I suppose it may be possible to make a decent disk-bottom frypan, but I've never seen one. In my experience, they are the worst offenders at having sides which are too steep and high (see here for a representative example. Perhaps it's a limitation of the manufacturing process.

The reasons why straight gauge is good for reduction pans are several. As the reduction becomes thick you would like to minimize any possibilities of scorching. But perhaps more importantly, one would like to be able to conduct heat into the liquid from as many vectors as possible (this will be less important as the size of the pan increases -- but will make a difference at most sizes home cooks are likely to use).

Posted Image


Another area where straight gauge has some advantages is for small to medium-sized pans for making sauces or other preparations where precise temperature control is important and one would like for the entire contents to be at the same temperature to the greatest extent possible. I also find that a pan with a pronounced curve up from the base to the sides is best for this kind of work, and this is impossible to do well with a disk-bottom design.

Edited by slkinsey, 14 February 2010 - 10:31 AM.

Samuel Lloyd Kinsey

#21 paulraphael

paulraphael
  • participating member
  • 2,973 posts

Posted 14 February 2010 - 04:39 PM

Something to consider: disk-bottom pans often have a much thicker piece of conductive material on the bottom than straight gauge pans. Not always, but it's common. The result is significant performance differences that are separate from the fundamental properties of these designs. Pans with a thick disk tend to heat extremely evenly. They also tend to have high thermal mass, making them excellent for browning big pieces of meat on the underpowered burners most of us have. The tradeoff is that they respond slowly to changes in flame size, making them harder to control.

A pan with a thick disk can therefore be a great choice on something like a 12" rondeau, and a lousy choice for small saucepan used for reducing cream sauces or whisking emusified egg yolk sauces.

Edited by paulraphael, 14 February 2010 - 04:39 PM.


#22 Porthos

Porthos
  • participating member
  • 1,072 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 14 February 2010 - 05:32 PM

Thank you all for your input.

Porthos Potwatcher
The Unrelenting Carnivore
"If every pork chop was perfect, we wouldn't have hot dogs." (source unknown)
Customer to clerk in a clothing store, "Do you have these in a size for people who actually eat?"


#23 Porthos

Porthos
  • participating member
  • 1,072 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 14 February 2010 - 08:22 PM

I have a cheap 10" SS fry pan with a disk bottom a gift from my DW. When I used it tonight I got out my infared thermometer and measured it for hot spots. I put it on my large 16k btu burner. When it heated up it had a 100 degree difference between one side and the other. It was centered over the flame. Yikes. That certainly opened my eyes a bit. I did manage to cook the steaks by carefully placing them.

Porthos Potwatcher
The Unrelenting Carnivore
"If every pork chop was perfect, we wouldn't have hot dogs." (source unknown)
Customer to clerk in a clothing store, "Do you have these in a size for people who actually eat?"


#24 Blether

Blether
  • participating member
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:Tokyo

Posted 15 February 2010 - 01:32 AM

Thanks for making such a full reply.

On my CrapMaster 5000 NYC apartment stove, the flame is around 13 cm across with no pan, and spreads to around 16.5 cm when a pan is put down on the grate. My observation is that there is some benefit for pans up to about 20 cm in diameter, but probably not much benefit with respect to this one particular issue above that. This issue can, of course, be largely mitigated with a disk-bottom pan where the disk extend the full diameter of the pan. But on a cost basis those pans don't tend to be much less expensive than straight gauge.


:-)

My Carbontastic 1200 gas stovetop here has a smaller burner (measuring carefully) of 7.5cm. The lowest flame, with the pan on it, covers 8 and a bit. My smallest saucepan is 13.5cm, with a 12cm disk. The same burner at full blast nicely covers the 21cm disk on my 23.5cm saute pan.

The reason why I say gas rather than electricity is because there is very little reason ever to use a straight gauge pan on an electric stove. This is because heat is only conducted from the electric heating element into the pan by physical contact. Since the "unprotected" edge of a disk-bottom pan is not contacting the heating element, there is no risk of this part of the pan overheating and scorching. I regularly melt sugar into a very dark caramel using my straight gauge saucepans, and this is something I would not be comfortable doing in my similarly-sized disk-bottom designs.


It's more than 20 years since I cooked on electricity, but those spiral elements used happily to get cherry-red-hot. I'd be wary of that heat close below the thin steel wall of the turn of my disk-bottomed pans. I'd fear burning of the contents there. I happily caramelise sugar in my disk-bottom pans, keeping the flame within the disk.

There are a number of reasons why straight gauge is good for true frypans -- and by "true frypans" I mean pans with short sides at a wide slope. Many so-called "frypans" nowadays have deep sides that quickly become more or less vertical, and these are closer to what I might call a "curved sauté pan" than a frypan. A proper frypan should have a shape like this, not like this.


Yes, the frypans I grew up with in the UK all had the straight-line sloping sides, so I can sympathise with an instinctual response that says, "that's not a frypan". It seemed that curved sides were a French thing.

The advantage to having straight gauge for a true frypan is that you would like to be able to heat the pan all the way to the edge and even a bit up the side so that food items in the pan will cook evenly no matter how close to the sides they may be.


Why is it good to heat up the sides of the frypan ? I don't balance food on there to try and cook it. I can see a bigger area of core-heated surface being useful, but I'd rather have it in a bigger disk bottom, than running up the sides where it's hard to use - copper being expensive and all.

I gave in to curve-sided frypans as part of a set of copper-disk-bottomed pans. And I've found the curved sides to be great for frying stuff like onions or mushrooms or both, or any kind of battuto, because they make the jolt-the-pan-forwards-to-toss-the-contents manoeuvre easy/possible.

For something like an omelette (for those of us who don't have a dedicated pan), I don't want to apply the same heat round the corners where the egg is shallow, or I'm going to end up with something rubber-rimmed like an early experiment by Dunlop.

The short, widely-sloping sides are important because they make it easier for steam to escape, which facilitates crisping (the whole point of frying).


Yeah. I've seen you write this a number of times, and I'm going to call shenanigans on it: "Shenanigans". (Is that how you do it ? I only know what I learn from South Park and The Simpsons). The steam at over 100C, finding itself over a 170C pool of oil and a 170C pan in a 20C kichen, has such a hard time finding somewhere to go that it needs relief from pressure at the sides ?! That steam is going straight up, with the proviso that there might be an eddy over the cooler surface of a big piece of food like a steak, a chop or a fish fillet. Do you really think the steam needs sloping pan sides so it can get out ? Have you tried a side-by-side test ?

I suppose it may be possible to make a decent disk-bottom frypan


DSCF0011.JPG

Decent, cheap disk-bottom frypans, today


The inverted one is tired non-stick; the two stainless-lined jobs never see soap. The small one I seem to use mostly for frying clean eggs to serve with bacon from the non-stick. Anyhow, all copper-disk-bottomed, and all very satisfactory in use: even, responsive, comfortable.

The reasons why straight gauge is good for reduction pans are several. As the reduction becomes thick you would like to minimize any possibilities of scorching. But perhaps more importantly, one would like to be able to conduct heat into the liquid from as many vectors as possible (this will be less important as the size of the pan increases -- but will make a difference at most sizes home cooks are likely to use).

Posted Image


I don't own and have never owned a reduction pan. All else being equal, once again I'd sooner deploy the same amount of core metal in a flat disk. I guess the idea of the reduction pan itself is that greater surface area (of the liquid) gives greater evaporation. I can see that makes a significant difference for ambient-temperature evaporation. Over high applied heat, the equation once the contents are boiling has to be heat in = (heat used in evaporation) + (heat lost through radiation from the pan) + (heat lost through radiation from the surface of the contents). What difference does the reduction pan shape makes vis-a-vis a straight-sided pan, and how much difference ? I don't know. Gut feeling (and it's wrong sometimes, I know) tells me there can't be much if anything in it, and even that a straight-sided, disk bottom design may in fact be better. So I'm going against a century or more of culinary tradition.

Another area where straight gauge has some advantages is for small to medium-sized pans for making sauces or other preparations where precise temperature control is important and one would like for the entire contents to be at the same temperature to the greatest extent possible. I also find that a pan with a pronounced curve up from the base to the sides is best for this kind of work, and this is impossible to do well with a disk-bottom design.


Isn't precise temperature control a question of heat-conducting material (let's call it HCM) and its thickness, rather than disk v clad ? Once again, I can't see that putting all the heat in through the pan bottom, given the same amount and thickness of HCM, is worse than putting the same amount of heat in from the sides as well as the bottom. I can see why you like a rounded side for stirring a sauce, though I don't find I have any trouble myself, with disk-bottom pan, straight sides and straight-edge wooden spoon / spatula.

Lastly, stepping back one post, "straight gauge" to me means 'constant thickness', so as you say, applying equally to a plain copper pan with the same thickness in bottom and sides, and to a 'clad' pan with the same thicknesses of core and inner and outer sheath in bottom and sides (and to a plain aluminium pan with etc.). I don't think casting restricts the manufacturer from varying the thickness from bottom to sides. I haven't checked, but I wonder if Le Creuset's pots are in fact straight gauge ? I know I've come across some cast iron ware that wasn't uniform (the bottom being thicker than the sides). Is All-clad in fact normally the same thickness in the sides as in the bottom ?

Likewise, you might loosely include enamelled cast iron as 'clad', but what were you going to do without the iron core ? Make a pot from enamel ? I'd be wary of extending the use of 'clad' that far.

Edited by Blether, 15 February 2010 - 01:47 AM.


#25 Gayle28607

Gayle28607
  • participating member
  • 51 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 09:52 AM

I've read various threads about which cookware various members would recommend. I don't own All-Clad or Sitram or any of the other higher-end pans that get discussed. For a point of reference I've been cooking for over 40 years. I own mainly Vollrath Pro-HG and Revere pots and pans. What differences would I expect to see if I started adding higher-end saute' and sauce pans to my kitchen. Any insights would be greatly appreciated.


Hi Porthos,

I don't know if you are still looking for responses on this, but if you are, here's one more. I have cooked on a mishmash of cookware for years, some nicer pieces, most not so great. The cookware was acquired many years ago, before I had a steady job. I got it as I haunted second hand shops and occasionally scored OLD copper bottom Revere (maybe from the 50's?). I've used that stuff day in and day out for 30+ years. That old Revere is heavier stainless steel than what they made in the 90's. I haven't looked at Revere since then, so that is my point of comparison. Given your timeline, that might be what you are cooking with, too.

As you have probably noticed, even the older, heavier Revere warps fairly easily. When I think I can get away with it I'll start and finish cooking in the same pot. You definitely have to be attentive, as you end up with the hot spots your note. I imagine that you, as have I, learned to adapt to the idiosyncrasies of this cookware long ago. It can be quite a dance to turn out something decent. I'll add that I am doing this cooking currently on some sort of strange electric disks that don't produce even heat, either.

Recently, I got a 12 inch AC MC2 fry pan and a 4 quart AC LTD saute pan from CookwareandMore. Wow. Everything is easier, from browning to simmering to cleanup. I'm nuts about this heavier cookware. It makes cooking easier. I'll never forget the first time I sauteed onions in the new fry pan and then added some lovely fresh frozen whole plum tomatoes from the freezer. No little brown onion bits. No sticking. No need for my Revere Ware tricks!

Now I'm in the process of added a few more pieces. I think the old Revere Ware has it's place, but I'm thinking it might be in someone else's kitchen.
gayle28607