Smithy

I don't know whether you were addressing that request to slkinsey in particular, but if you weren't, I will. I didn't much like my clay pot braising results the first night, but as the nights progressed and I continued recombining the meat and juice and reheating them in their pot, that sample became one of my favorites. I doubt that the clay has either the heat content or heat conductivity of the metals. Therefore I think there must be something else going on to explain the clay pot results, and I'm guessing it's related to the way the pores inside the pot exchange moisture and flavors with the meat and juice. What does the materials expert think? I certainly plan to do more braising in the clay pot vs. the Le Creuset and All-Clad, to see what happens as my technique and control improve. It may be that certain flavor combinations benefit more from the earthy pot flavor than others do. I have a clay pot question right away, for Ms. Wolfert: do they take on the flavors of the foods cooked in them to the point that you reserve some for certain types of food? If so, which do you segregate? Finally, thank you Wolfert for the note above about clarifying the sauce. That's a neat trick, and I have a lot of juice on which to try it.

Heck, who needs adjoining towns? That happens in our household all the time, and we aren't even in Texas!!

The sauce seemed to be different in my test. I plan a more careful series of tests to confirm this, but I thought the sauce from deglazing the stovetop steel (not nonstick) pan was richer, more complex and darker than the other sauces. For that matter, I also thought there were some differences in the meat texture and taste - but they were admittedly minor, not as noticeable as the sauce differences. I'll know more tonight when I reheat the samples. ← It's tonight. I didn't label the samples. One sample is more tender than the others, but I don't know which one it is, except that it is one of the meats that had been browned beforehand. How do I know? By the juices, or sauces, whatever you want to call them. (I haven't bothered reducing them, so they're runny but flavorful.) Three are indistinguishable. The fourth is different in appearance, texture, and to some degree taste. It was like this last night too, and even though I've lost the labels I know that this one dish had the unseared meat. The unbrowned-meat sauce separates readily into two layers, with the top layer a clear, maybe golden, maybe colorless, liquid. (It's difficult to be sure of the color, given the small sample.) It gives the bowl juice a halo effect, of light golden color around the reddish sauce. The browned-meat sauces all are more homogenous, with no halo from having a clear layer floating atop a darker layer. The juices look somehow more coagulated. I can taste the wine, meat juice and spices in all 4 samples, but the unbrowned-meat-braise-juice tastes, erm, lighter somehow. I tried to photograph the differences, but now as I'm previewing the post I don't think they came out. I won't bother casual readers with them, but they're in my Braising Lab 3+ album in case anyone else is interested enough to look. I poured the juices into small glasses to see how they'd separate. The top layer of the unbrowned-meat juice was clearer than the layer below and the top layer of the browned-meat juices was cloudier than the layer below. I haven't a clue of the chemistry behind what I'm seeing, or what it might mean for making a sauce, or what it says about the braising method. Either setup tastes fine, but they're different. Why? Enquiring minds want to know!

Ms. Wolfert, I was wondering today about the tagines. Are there specific cuts of meat that are generally used? You mention shoulder or breast of lamb. Is that because they benefit particularly from this treatment? Are there cuts that do not benefit from tagines?

The sauce seemed to be different in my test. I plan a more careful series of tests to confirm this, but I thought the sauce from deglazing the stovetop steel (not nonstick) pan was richer, more complex and darker than the other sauces. For that matter, I also thought there were some differences in the meat texture and taste - but they were admittedly minor, not as noticeable as the sauce differences. I'll know more tonight when I reheat the samples.

Fiftydollars, are you using gas or an electric stove? If you ever said, I missed it.

Yes, I'd also like to thank Steven and the eGCI team. This has been a very instructive and gratifying class. I've learned a lot of technique this week, raised a lot of questions and answered a few. This has been a great line of scientific inquiry. I've also made some darned good meals this week, applying my new braising knowledge to projects outside the scope of the lab sessions. Thanks for helping me get another cooking method into my repertoire.

Hmm. My results are a bit different than Fat Guy's. The treatment: -Each piece of meat was rubbed with a spice blend of paprika, salt, pepper, freshly ground coriander and some spice I know as bohaar - possibly allspice, but the ground berry doesn't really smell like allspice. -3 pieces of meat were browned in 3 different ways: one in a stainless steel All-Clad pan, one in a teflon-coated skillet, and one under the broiler. The 4th piece was left unbrowned. - The cooking vessels were identical ceramic bowls, approx. 2cup capacity, with foil covers. -1/4 c. wine (merlot, it was the calmest thing I could find around here) was used to deglaze the browned pieces, and was simply added to the unbrowned piece. The deglazing liquid was put with its respective piece of meat. - another 1/8 c. of beef broth (from cubes! I'm out of the weekend stuff!) was added to bring the liquid level up to roughly half the height of each piece. 1 small (1/2") red dried pepper was crushed and added to the broth in each bowl. - The covered bowls were set in the oven on the bottom rack. I did it this way for two reasons: first, I've had better success using oven braising so far, and second, I thought we were again supposed to keep all the dishes separate. - The initial oven temperature was 300F. After 1/2 hour, when nothing was simmering, I stepped the temp up to 350F. After an hour I had vigorous simmering under way so I reduced the temp to 320F, remember belatedly that we'd been using that temperature earlier in the week. -I kept track of temperature, and every time I measured I rotated the bowls to ensure more or less even heating. Results: -The browned meats were done at the same time, 1-1/2 hours after they went into the oven. -The unbrowned meat took more than another half hour to reach the same stage of doneness, based on my (admittedly inexpert) fork testing. 28 minutes after the others were done, it was still not done. I next checked it at 47 minutes after the others were done, and it was done. That may have been 10 minutes' overkill but it wasn't 20 minutes' worth. That's 2:20 total cook time for a 2-1/8 oz. piece of meat! -I agree that there's little to no difference in appearance among the 4 samples. As Fat Guy said, the browned meats had lost some of their brownness in the liquid and the unbrowned meat had gained some in the heat. -It probably won't suprise anyone that the deglazing with wine produced better results in the All-Clad pan than in the teflon-coated pan. The sauce from the AC sample seems a bit richer than from the others. (Yes, I deglazed the broiler pan too, but that was a much messier affair and shouldn't count.) -It's difficult to be sure without a blind taste test, but I think the All-Clad seared meat had a better texture than the teflon-seared meat or the broiled meat. -The broiler-seared meat ws cooked more, and initially seems a bit more chewy, than either of the pan-seared meats. So far the unseared meat seems the loser in terms of texture and flavor. Caveat: I'm discussing very small differences, and as has happened in almost every one of my labs this week, none of the meat has been something to share with company on the first night. Once again, I thank you, Fat Guy, for the insight to the meat cut. It makes me feel good that I've gotten a few good results at all! Reheating experiments: I reheated 3 of my original 6 dishes, and found all three to be drier than they had been last night or the night before although their flavor was still good. The relatively high oven heat (I was doing the braises at 300F at the time) may have contributed to the meat's demise. I can test that tomorrow with the last of my Sunday/Monday samples. Based on what I've seen so far, though, I'd say the flavor and texture improved on the first and second reheatings, and deteriorated on the third.

Yet another reheating experiment: today, out of time and desperate for a lunch to pack, I grabbed the Sunday samples that had lost their labels. These have not been reheated until now since I couldn't be sure of their source. I reheated them, sans juice (because I missed those containers) in a microwave oven at 50% power (sorry, don't know the wattage) for 3 minutes. Folks, even with that brutal treatment they were better than on the first night. Much, much better. Juicier, more tender. Either that, or my senses have been beaten into submission by bottom round.

So far I seem to be the only one whose stovetop braise wasn't as flavorful or tender as the high-temp oven braise. It could be a matter of technique, of course, but I'm wondering whether it might be equipment. Am I the only one working with an electric stove today?

Wednesday night reheating: all Sunday/Monday meats have been stored separately, labeled, with their juices in separate labeled containers. For this experiment they've been reheated in their respective juices. The clay pot meat and juice were reheated in the clay pot. Most others were reheated in ceramic gratin dishes covered with foil; the Ovenshire batch was reheated in a Corning Grab-It ™ pot with glass lid. All were reheated in the top rack of the oven for around 40 minutes while Part 1 (low-temp oven braise) was going on the bottom rack. I should note that the original Corning Ware braised sample got lost in the shuffle and can no longer be part of this test. Ovenshire and All-Clad (both metal, nonenameled): chewy, dry, flavor ok. I don't think I could tell these apart. I don't know that they've improved over last night, but they're better than when they were first cooked. Foil-cooked batch: still unrepentently chewy. I don't think this has improved at all. Le Creuset batch: more flavorful and moist than last night, which was better than when originally cooked. Still not "company" quality, quite, but the flavors show definite promise. That mix of caramelized sauce from the first night with leftover broth from the second night is still paying flavor dividends. Clay pot cooked meat: there's very little juice left, and this is still the best of the bunch. It's definitely more flavorful and tender than last night, which was better than the night before. Based on Sunday's results, I wouldn't have tried braising beef in my clay pot again. Based on tonight's results, I definitely will. I can easily imagine this meat reaching "company" quality with a bit of tweaking. (I'll bet Wolfert could see this coming....) Surprise!

I don't know whether I'll manage to complete the experiment before falling asleep, so I'll post partial results. I started with the high-temperature braise since I could do 2 dishes at once. I used a 2-qt Le Creuset oval oven and a 1-1/2-qt LC oval oven for the closest comparison possible. Granted, there are some size differences, but I didn't have 2 identical dishes that could tolerate the stove top. By the way, I agree with the complaint about the new phenolic LC handles. I propose eBay and vintage LC as a solution: The meat was my weeklong project, bottom round steak cut 1" thick, then cut here into chunks. This time, I seasoned all of them before searing with a combination of paprika, ground black pepper and dried thyme. After searing, I deglazed all with 1/4c. of last night's red wine, then added enough beef stock to bring the level up to around 3/8". I realize that this shifts the wine:stock ratio slightly between the two vessels, but I didn't bother to compensate. I'm using an electric oven with electric burners, standard household GE variety, relatively new but nothing too fancy. Now for the results. Please forgive the funny batch numbering, but I wrote these in the order Fat Guy set them up, so I did #2 and #3 at the same time, and #1 is in the oven. Think of it as watching the Star Wars series. If I try to translate now, it'll get messed up later when I add the final braise numbers. #2: initial weight 4-1/8 oz, into a 2-qt LC French oven. Temp after searing 118F. Deglazed and added broth as noted above, then placed in preheated 300F oven, on the bottom rack where I've had the best results this week. #3: initial weight 4-1/8 oz, into a 1.5-qt LC French oven. Temp after searing 117F. Deglazed & added broth as noted above, then lowered burner (coil) setting to try to match the simmering happening in the oven. This took a few tries, between trying to match the heat settings and the slow thermal response of LC, but after 21 minutes I had the liquid simmering at the same rate, judging by the bubbles coming up around the meat. Batch....7:30....7:43....8:07...8:34....8:50......9:11 #2........118.....147..!..154.....162.....171 DONE! Fork tender, very flavorful! #3.........117....144..!...171.....162....174.......171 Declared done; juice nearly gone Notes: 1. The stovetop simmer finally matched the oven simmer at 7:51, where the ! appears in the timeline. 2. The oven braise was positively, definitely done, and toothsome at that, at 8:50. Tender, juicy. Is this the same meat I've been braising all along? There was quite a bit of braising liquid left in the pan. I didn't try reducing it. 3. The stovetop braise was defined as being done at 9:11 because it was running out of liquid. I suppose I could have added more, but a lovely caramelization was going on, and the meat was drying out. The juices were actually separating a bit into bits of caramel and bits of fat, evidence that it had gone too far. 4. It's worth noting that, because I wanted to taste the meats side by side and they weren't done at the same time, the oven-braised meat had some 20 minutes' rest before being cut. Resting may have been important to retaining juices. I didn't control for that. 5. The initial weights (4-1/8 oz) and final weights (2-3/8 oz) were the same for both pieces of meat. Nonetheless, the stovetop meat was drier and had considerably less braising liquid. It's possible that my visual estimate of boiling rate was off, and that the stovetop was cooking faster than the oven braise, but they looked the same to me. It's also possible that adding liquid as this cooked down would have done wonders for flavor and texture. That's another experiment. The results: both looked pretty good but there were marked differences in the behavior of stovetop vs. oven as well as the final results. Oven: done, really nicely done, in 1:50, having been at or above 160 for roughly 1/2 hour. Stovetop: this braise looked better because of the heavy sauce, but the meat was quite dry. It never felt as tender as the oven braise meat did. I used the same testing method (ease of insertion and removal of the temperature probe). This time, with the oven braise, I finally think I understand what "fork tender" is all about. I didn't get that with the stovetop braise. If my temperature readings are correct (granted, probe placement can go wrong) then the stovetop meat was at or above 162 for at least an hour, twice the time of the oven braise. Note that the temperature had not yet started to rise when I pulled the meat - so I hadn't cooked through the temperature "stall". I really was surprised and pleased at the results of the oven braise this time. Since the temperature isn't that different than before - and the meat is from the same batch - I suspect it's a result of (a) seasoning the meat beforehand and (b) deglazing with wine and then adding broth. I wouldn't be ashamed to serve the braise from the oven. It still didn't hold a candle to the ribs I braised tonight (beyond the scope of the lab, but a good application of what I'm learning) but the technique seems to be improving. By comparison, the stovetop braise was difficult to control in temperature and didn't yield good results. Once again I was surprised. Time to go check on Step 1. ************************************************ Step 1 results begin here, as an edit the next morning. This test was inconclusive because I gave up at 1:00 and went to bed, leaving the meat in the oven all night. Batch...10:09....10:28....10:50....12:00....12:47.......06:00 1..........108F......133F....153.........151......147..........160 Notes: 1. I think the 12:47 reading of 147 may be probe position error. I've found it's pretty easy for me to shift the temperature reading a few degrees either way by repositioning. 2. At 12:00 when I realized that the meat hadn't even hit the collagen-melting temperature after 2 hours, I turned the oven setting up from 200F to 210F. 3. Note that the initial temperature, just after searing, is 10F lower than the initial temperature of the other two. Searing wasn't quite as hot, apparently, and the meat was just a bit paler. Results: 1. There was a rich brown juice, not reduced that I could tell, in the pan. It looked lovely. This juice had a sheen not present in the other juices. I suspect it's another clue of overdoneness. 2. I now know what "overcooked" actually means and how to judge it with a fork. This meat was very tender, but offered no resistance when the probe went in or out, and the little probe holes stayed open. There was no elasticity left. The meat wasn't tough, but it had the consistency and flavor of, oh, particle board that's been soaked in water long enough to fall apart. Note the probe holes in the photo below. 3. Initial weight was 3-3/4 oz; final weight was 2-3/8 oz. I'm interested and puzzled that this meat lost the least mass during cooking. 4. It seems clear that sometime in the night the meat passed through the "done" stage. I'll have to try this one again before making any judgments. Edited to add the final results - all contained below the ********** line. Sorry if this belonged in a new post, but I preferred to keep everything together.

So, what are some favorite treatments for pork liver? It happens I have several packages in the freezer, leftovers from the hog we had butchered. So far they've continued taking up space while the pork roast, chops, ham, etc. have vanished. Every time I look at a package labeled 'Pork Liver' I remember Mason Williams' "Them Poems". (Anyone else remember "Them Hog Liver Likers"?) That doesn't help clear out the freezer.

I agree, there's something presumptuous and condescending in it. Would I ever be able to put less than my best effort into a gift? Sometimes I am so tired I am tempted just to buy something from the bakery, but my heart wouldn't be in the gift. ← Well, I don't know about the presumptuous and condescending part. Maybe I just have a different attitude about a potluck than about a gift. A gift - that takes my heart and soul, and I'll give it my best effort within the bounds of baking/cooking something I think the recipient will like. A potluck - my office crew has very different tastes than my husband and I, and recipes around here frequently start with opening a can of cream of mushroom soup. I know from sorry experience that hummus (as with another poster) or a roasted red pepper salad will go untouched at the office potluck. I also know my husband would be appalled at the buffalo wing chicken dip (although he might well eat it with gusto, complaining all the while about the fat ) that would be a smash at the potluck. Mind you, *I* like that chicken dip, so I'm bringing something I like - even if I wouldn't serve it at home. But I like the roasted red pepper salad, too, and I know it won't go over in some circles. I don't think that's condescension or presumption so much as realism. BTW, I was horrified at the Cool-Whip incident too...my sympathies!

Oh dear, oh dear! Fiftydollars, I'm so glad that neither you nor your precious knives were hurt. That makes it okay to laugh, no? (Well, maybe later, after the pain of losing all that veal stock is blunted.) I AM glad you weren't impaled, nor evidently damaged beyond a bruise, your pride and the loss of the veal stock. What kind of red wine did you use? Would you use that variety again, in a shorter wine braise? If not, what would you try next, and why?

You'll definitely want to have some of these on hand just to kick things off . Good luck, take lots of pictures and share with us. ← You sneak!

I was thinking the same thing on the bus this morning. But then I thought, even if there is a reason, the reason could be wrong. Then again, so far, our experiments have confirmed that fully submerged (is that redundant?) works better, at least under our test conditions. ← Uhm, haven't most of the posts said the fully submerged pieces had less flavor and poorer appearance than the ones partially submerged with the same liquid? Don't mean to be argumentative, but I do want to understand what you mean by "works better".

My Le Creuset sample of Sunday night supports that assertion. As noted above it seemed overcooked, along with all its counterparts, but it absolutely had the best flavor. The sauce had reduced down to a molasses consistency, the flavor hinted of caramel, and it glazed the meat beautifully. In last night's reheat, that meat and sauce, mixed with the more liquid sauce from Monday night's LC braise, had the best flavor, with much more depth and complexity than the others. (This is all news to me! )

Thanks for that insight. I'd been wondering how much the meat choice was a factor in my disappointment. It certainly was better the second night. We'll see how it does tonight. I'm especially interested in the idea that the clay pot stuff might improve most dramatically although it was among my least favorites the first night.

Lab 2: Effects of braising liquid The braising vessels were 4 identical ceramic "individual gratin" dishes that fit snugly onto a cookie sheet on the bottom rack of the oven. Bottom round steaks, approx. 1" thick, were cut to make 4 pieces, approx. 3"x2". Each piece was browned in 1 T canola oil in an All-Clad SS sauce pan. After browning the meat was removed to its dish and the pan was deglazed with braising liquid, then the liquid was poured in the cooking vessel around the meat. The pan was wiped dry after each batch to prevent cross-contamination of residual braising liquids or fats. The dishes were covered tightly with aluminum foil and placed in the bottom rack of my oven, which had been preheated to 300F in light of apparent overheating at 325 on the previous nights. The braising liquids: A - 1/2" beef broth made this weekend B - 1" (nearly to cover, nearly overflowing the vessel) of the same broth C - Inexpensive red wine Folie a Deux Menage a Trois, a nice blend of zinfandel, merlot and cabernet out of the Napa Valley D - Water, with chopped carrot, celery and onion The batches, and their notes: A & B - temp after browning 86F. Nothing untoward about the browning or deglazing. C - temp after browning 88 F. Deglazing was very different with the wine: it bubbled quickly, reduced rapidly, almost to a syrupy consistency, while I was stirring. The wine and meat juices made a rich dark red braising liquid. D - temp after browning 84F. Sauteed roughly half of the mirepoix before deglazing the pan, and added the rest of the mirepoix raw to the braising vessel. Started all dishes, covered with foil, on the bottom rack at 8 p.m. Sorry, but due to dinner I still didn't get a reading during the first half-hour. However, at 8:42 p.m. there still didn't seem to be any simmering happening. Temperatures and times: Batch 8:00 8:42 9:26 9:50 10:28 A 86 142 174 176 163 B 86 154 183 176 172 C 88 154 165 165 174 (actually seemed done at 9:50) D 84 145 169 178 185 The pan was rotated 180* each time temperatures were taken, to eliminate oven position as a variable. At 8:45 the oven temperature was increased to 325 because nothing seemed to be simmering. At 9:25 (2nd reading) simmering could be heard but wasn't visible. At 9:50 the wine sample seemed noticeably more tender than the others, and ready to come out. For some reason I left it in anyway. At 10:28 I removed everything. Observations: Batch Initial Wt Cooked Wt Notes A 3-3/8 oz 1-3/4 oz Tender, meaty, good flavor. Slightly dry? B 3-3/8 oz 1-7/8 oz Meaty, good flavor, slightly dry? C 3-3/8 oz 1-7/8 oz Deep red beautiful crust, pink inside, moist. This was by far the best-looking and -textured of the samples. Unfortunately it tasted too acidic. I'd like to get that red wine look and tenderizing with a better taste. Maybe mix wine and broth? D 3 oz 1-5/8 oz Tasted like watery mirepoix. The photo shows the color differences. In the back are the shallow broth and high broth. Front left is wine, front right is water and mirepoix. The closeup shows the wine braise with its striking color contrast. Lovely stuff. I didn't try reducing anything to improve the sauce, beyond what had already happened in the oven. I agree with an earlier post suggesting that the mirepoix had given up some of its juices to the braising liquid, but I didn't measure liquid quantities before or after, so I can't be sure. Edited to add photos, and later for spelling.

Tonight's braises are still in progress, so I'll report in the meantime on the reheating experiment. Background: I actually did the first lab twice, the second time with fewer dishes so they'd all sit on one rack. As a result I had 6 sets of meat and juice (stored separately) from Sunday and 3 sets of meat and juice (that's a lot of refrigerator space and containers) from Monday. It was too many samples. The labels fell off a couple, so I couldn't use them, and some others turned up in the back of the refrigerator after I'd finished. So, some of the cooking methods had 2 days' worth of meat and others didn't. The Corning Ware-cooked sample didn't get reheated tonight because I discovered it too late. I was careful to put the juice and meat from a single cookpot together, so that (say) the juice from the foil pan didn't go with the All-Clad braised meat. I loaded everything into ovenproof containers and put them all on the top rack to reheat. The meat and juice from the Egyptian clay pot went back into that pot. Everything else went into a Corning Ware or steel bowl - whatever was available. First, I noticed that all the juices had gelled heavily, and all had a skim of fat that hadn't been obvious while the juices were hot. I removed the fat before adding the juice to the meat for reheating. The Le Creuset on Sunday night had had heavily caramelized juices, but Monday had left more liquids. Those were mixed together. Otherwise, the LC sample would had very little liquid. There was very little juice from the clay pot sample. I didn't supplement it with anything. The original reheating instructions said to test one piece of meat and simply reheat the others. As it happens, I cooked a lot of extras, so I was able to taste them all tonight and leave plenty for successful reheatings. The results in a nutshell were that everything except the foil-cooked sample improved dramatically in taste and texture. Last night and Sunday night I was disappointed in them all - too dry and chewy. Tonight, even after a fine meal of a successful braise beyond the scope of this lab, two of the dishes tasted great. I'm glad there are more pieces with which to continue testing during the week. Le Creuset, with the heavily caramelized juice from Sunday and the more ample juice from Monday, won hands-down in flavor and texture. It was definitely more tender than before, and the flavor was complex. The clay pot sample was my other favorite. Again, the meat was more tender. It may have been a touch drier, but it's hard to tell. It was interesting to me to note that the flavor had improved. On Sunday night I thought the meat tasted too much of the pot. Tonight the pot flavor added only a slight accent, barely noticeable, and quite nice. Looked cool, too, in a low-tech way: The samples braised in All-Clad were chewy, a bit dry. The Ovenshire (also uncoated metal) samples were chewy, not quite as dry as the All-Clad. The foil-cooked samples were unrepentantly chewy and dry, and may not have improved from last night. I don't expect improvement during the week but I certainly plan to test it, since the other samples surprised me tonight.

Ewwww! Nope. Not as I've tasted it, in this country or in Egypt. ("Bamya! It's good! Try it!" Blecch.) I am utterly baffled that otherwise well-educated palates should be so misguided as to think a slimy mucilaginous mass could be good anywhere except in the compost, or as bearing grease. It looks like recently-salted garden slugs and I can think of few things less appetizing in appearance. However. I'll admit I've never had okra crispy, nor have I tried it in gumbo. The door is cracked open for a change of heart, maybe, someday.

The issue is that not one of us seems to have taken temperature readings during that first half hour. The hypothetical proposition of my hypothetical graph is that a lot of action may have taken place during the first 30 minutes and that it may have had the foil racing out ahead in temperature and then being overtaken by the time we measured. Of course, a hypothesis usually isn't worth much until it's proven. So at some point someone will have to test this with probe thermometers so we can take readings every 5 minutes without constantly opening the oven and triggering the uncertainty principle by affecting the experiment with our observations. ← Hmm. I have 1 thermocouple-based thermometer and an older Taylor instant-read thermometer with the small dial on the end of the probe, like the one you show in your first lab instructions. Is that dial oven-proof? If so, I'm in business after a calibration check.

As I read your instructions for the second lab, you're saying to reheat everything from Lab 1 but only taste one sample (for instance, the one from the Corning but not from any of the other pots). Is that right?

My temperature readings don't match up with your hypothetical graph; if anything, I seemed to get the reverse of what you sketch there. The LC and heavy metal pots' meat temperatures came up more quickly than in the foil or the clay pot on my first attempt, with the Corning pot somewhere in the middle as far as temp rise rate. Granted, the first set of measurements may be flawed because the meat in the foil, clay pot and Corning pots all had time to cool before going into the oven, whereas the metal pots and their contents went in straightaway. (I wanted everything to go in at once, and I didn't measure the internal temperature of the meat after searing on that run.) During the second test, I did measure internal meat temperature after browning. The foil meat was a bit hotter to start with because I had it on a hotter burner. Nonetheless, after 1 hour it was cooler than the meat in the other two pans. I had been juggling everything to keep the heat as constant as possible and eliminate pan position as a variable. As far as the usage notes go, I made a number in my earlier post. I was surprised to find, counter to my expectations and your experience, that the LC seemed to brown as well as the All-Clad or the older steel pot. I liked the conveniece of being able to brown in the pot I planned to use, and would be more inclined to use one of the metal pieces for this reason. However, until I can get actually good results I personally won't discount the Corning. It may have the best combination of utility (clear lid, good seal) and thermal mass, not to mention price, to represent an optimal solution. Something's rumbling around in the back of my head about thermal mass and heat radiation, with analogies to resonant frequencies, but so far it all sounds like rubbish when I try to write it. I'll try anyway. Is all infrared energy the same, for our purposes, or are some frequencies in the heat range more useful than others? Sam says these pots are merely conducting heat and not radiating it, but any warm body radiates heat back to its environment. Under some conditions there's a frequency shift downward during the absorption/re-radiation process. Is it possible the foil is so light, so to speak, that it just sits and quivers in the thermal equivalent of a high-pitched whine whereas the heavy pots are booming at a lower and more useful radiation frequency? Or am I just getting carried away with analogies?