cake

Recently I had the opportunity to visually (no micrometer!) compare the MC2 and the SS lines in a store. To my eyes, the same exact pan in the MC2 definitely had noticably thicker walls than the SS. I have two All Clad MC2 pans and like them, FWIW (even though they may be overkill according to Sam, but they were gifts so I didn't mind!) Also, FWIW, I have never used anything from the SS line so I have no direct experience with them.

Ed, So sorry it has been so long for me to write in to thank you for your advice. I have been digesting all this info over the past several months (while I focused on upgrading my pots and pans first) and, having read Chad's knife sharpening course and many threads on knives here on eGullet, I am finally ready to revisit the knife question. Indeed, a longer knife makes a lot of sense. It would make sense even if I didn't have repetitive stress issues--I realized that clearly the other day when mincing something and wishing for a longer blade. My Wusthof Dreizwerk (sp?) 8" chef is 250g, and I have really begun to "get" that a longer blade, either Japanese or vintage Sabatier, that would probably weigh the same or less as my Wusthof. A longtime eBay seller of vintage European cutlery suggested that if I get a Sabatier, I strongly consider a Nogent-style instead of the "regular" style to reduce the weight even more. He sell both kinds, so I feel reasonably okay that he is not telling me this just to buy from him. No matter what I purchase from him, if I don't like the feel of it once I get it in the mail, he said I can return it to him--no problem, he will refund my money less shipping. The other option that seems to remain is a Japanese Gyutou. From what I have read, here is what I understand to be the pros/cons of each style: Vintage Nogent-style Sabatier PRO *even lighter than "regular" Sabatier due to rat-tail tang *takes a really sharp edge CON *will need more frequent re-sharpening *carbon steel is higher maintenance than stainless Japanese Gyutou PRO *steel alloys allows for thinner/sharper/harder blade that Euro stainless *stays sharper longer than Euros b/c steel is harder (assuming not carbon steel) *lack of guard (bolster bulge) at heel allows for sharpening along entire length of blade CON *need to be more careful around bones to prevent chipping than with a Sabatier *lack of guard (bolster bulge) at heel may mean I will have to get used to a different "feel" since I have only used Euro knives thus far Is it reasonable to assume that a vintage Sabatier Nogent will be lighter than most Japanese Gyutous (of the same length) due to the former's lack of a full tang?

I can second that. I ordered an 11" curved sauteuse evasee, the Try Me 1.6 QT saucier and the 11" fry pan, all through Michael Harp, Falk's US distributor, and he was very reliable and easy to deal with. This really was a good thing because when the Brown Truck of Joy arrived, I found that the curved sauteuse evasee was slightly defective in that the handle was a wee bit wiggly where it connected to the pan (at the rivets). I contacted Michael by email and he replied explaining that there had been a batch of pans on which the rivet holes had been drilled 1 mm too large for the rivets. He told me to go ahead and use the pan anyway, that it would definitely be fine to use if the amount of liquid in the pan was kept below the rivets. He assured me thatt once he had new inventory in on this item, he would send me a replacement. I told him that I hadn't yet used the pan, and even though I doubted that he would want it back, I asked him, but he replied as I had expected explaining since it was a damaged itemo it didn't make sense for him to pay to have it shipped back to him, and it would be written off as bad inventory. True to his word, a 100% perfect replacement pan just arrived earlier this week via UPS. The two other items which I bought from him are great. I have no complaints and I am very glad I found eGullet and this course! (Hurrah for Sam!) As for the unused pan with the slightly wiggly handle, it remains unused in a box in my living room. I don't have room for it in my compact kitchen.

Sam, Now that the copper is (finally) taken care of, I am getting ready to tweak a few other pieces. Tall Sauce Pan--Narrowing it Down You had said 4 to 4.5 quarts was a good size. I'm fine with that. Looking at the Bridge website, I see that the S. Professerie doesn't have a tall sauce pan in this size, so that's out. That leaves this Sitram Catering 4.8 Qts for $83 and change, or Paderno 4.4 Qts for $78, which is the one you said you had yourself and had mentioned a while back. Since the prices and capacities of these two pots are so close, I would just like to have a better grasp of what the materials/construction differences in both of them will mean to me in terms of performance. One minor consideration for me is the handles. I won't be able to check out these pans in person since I don't live in NYC. But comfy/ergo handles are always a nice bonus as I have a Repetitive Stress Injury in both wrists/elbows, it is always nice when the grip isn't sucky... But still, pan performance and durability is more important to me than the handles. Same question applies for a Saute Pan--which of these three choices (the two Sitrams and the Paderno) makes the most sense? For the very short term I will be fine with the Falk Saucier, but will soon want to add a saute pan. Omelette Pan Not sure my 11" s/s lined copper fry pan is going to cut it for this! Haven't tried it, but imagine it would be too sticky to work unless extremely lubricated with fat, and that much butter under my omelette would make it taste of too much butter and not enough of egg. What did the French use to make omelettes before non-stick came along? French blue/black steel? (I honestly have to say I don't really understand why blue/black works, but I know it does a great job on my crepes). I was recently given a hand-me-down French Steel Crepe Pan from Williams-Sonoma which, in addition to using it for its stated purpose, I decided to try using for omelettes, but either my technique needs some work, or the construction of my pan vs. the #-of-eggs pan is different enough to matter (witht the sides of my crepe pan being very shallow and short). Everthing goes fine until it is time to push the eggs to the side of the pan to do the flop-over--there seems to not be enough height or curveto get the eggs to do this, and the flared sides seem to make the eggs want to keep going and slide right out of the pan. So right now, I am stuck using a spat to stop the eggs from sliding out, and also, to do the flop-onto-itself move. (oh the shame!). As I haven't been able to find a so-named French steel #-of-eggs pan for sale online anywhere (Bridge has a lot of black steel but none are specifically referred to as "egg pans" on the web site) and haven't even seen one except for the pix in the Wit and Wisdom of Eggs thread where you are demo'ing making an omelette in such a pan, and since it is really hard to tell by the photos if there is a difference in the sides between your pan and mine. And I like omelettes enough, and make them enough, that I would want to have a pan that are better suited for them (unless, you think the pans are pretty much a wash and its my technique that is just sucky). Other alternatives? Non-stick fry pan of some sort? I don't own any non-stick cookware right now... The Calphalon non-stick that people seemed to swear by sound like they've been long discontinued... Also, what factors should I know about when deciding between non-stick and the French steel? (other than price) Versatility? (Since I just got the copper stuff, I feel like I am pretty set for most stuff, but if there is some application that non-stick might still be useful for besides eggs, it may be a better choice. I just don't know what that application might be besides super delicate fish, but still, I'd prefer to use at least try the copper for that before resorting to non-stick.) Lids I bought a Universal Lid before I found eGullet. It had those concentric ridges (made of thin metal), and in center of the rings was a clear plastic disc so you could see your food cook, and a plastic knob. I gave up on it when I lifted the knob only to have the plastic disk separate from the metal disk. More recently I got a much sturdier one made of s/s and with a tempered glass disk. So, I brought the new one home and used it, and only then did I notice that there are a few "steam holes" in the lid. I suspect that these steam holes ares NOT such a good idea, particularly with grain dishes that are supposed to absorb steam. Plus, I don't know if the knob is oven safe. Am I right to be concerned about these steam holes? Seems to me the point of a cover is to keep the steam IN. As for the glass "window", I don't actually *want* this -- I find them gimmicky marketing tricks aimed at people who don't know much about cookware (this used to be me until recently )--they sound like a good idea at the store (or on TV) but then you use it and find out that steam from the food obliterates the view. Plus, I once dropped an all-tempered-glass lid--not something I'd like to risk again. Unfortunately, I have yet to find an all-metal, sturdy Universal Lid. If you know of anything like this, PLMK. Short of that, I noticed you recommend Paderno lids since they're not too expensive. Sounds reasonable to me. My main concern is that I really want to have as few lids as possible as I'm limited on storage space, plus I don't need then that often, and rarely do I need two at once (when I get a new tall saucepan, I will of course get a lid to go with it). My local restaurant supply place here in Los Angeles carries Vollrath, which I know nothing about, but I wonder if those would also be acceptable? Right now, my "topless" cookware consists of 11" fry and 11" saucier (both Falk), a 12" cast iron skillet (Lodge), and the small Falk saucier w/ 7.5" diameter. Okay, I know that was a LOT of questions. Sorry! I am just so happy with my new copper than I want to get everything else "just right" too! Don't mean to overwhelm you! Best, Cindy

Yes. Acetone (aka nail polish remover, but available for less money at your local hardware store) is best, but 93% rubbing alcohol from the drug store will do the trick as well. I know the Falk isn't shiny, but it didn't mention anything. Just wanted to double check that all I needed to do before using them for the first time was to wash them? 'Cuz that's all I did! ~Cindy

Sam, My Falk order has arrived! Not everything was in stock so they shipped out what they had on hand first, and then the balance came in just last night (poor UPS guy was working late--came at about 8pm on a Saturday evening!). Michael @ the US Falk distributor was super nice. He was VERY communicative about my order via email. Very helpful and a pleasure to work with. My 11" fry pan came first--about a week ago... I've made chicken milanese, veal scallopini, orzo pilaf and a steak so far. I would have used it more, but there were a few days when I was sick and couldn't cook anything more complicated than pasta. What can I say, Sam, I looooove this pan. The one thing about it that is taking me a bit of time to get used to deglazing in it. The fond seems to stick way more than in the previous brand of pan I was using, which was Scanpan Classic. These pans are marketed as non-stick, but they are decidedly NOT the Teflon-coated kind of pan. They are not as slick as teflon, and the "non-stick" surface is not a coating, it is actually integrated into the pan and you can use metal utensils. What's weird is that these pans really do allow fond development (though perhaps not as much as my new pans, but then I never measured them!) It makes sense that since I am cooking on a s/s surface for pretty much the first time in my life (I grew up in Teflon household with some enamel coated cast-iron thrown in for good measure) that there would be a bit of an adjustment in switching surfaces. But, all this being the case I find I really have to give this pan several REALLY good scrapes to deglaze, and even when I am done that there is still a bit of residue left when I am cleaning up. Right now I am using this spatula to deglaze, might the specific tool have anything to do with it? I used to use a flat-ended wooden spoon, but as the edge recently split, I chucked it and haven't had a chance to pick up a new one yet, so I decided to use the above-mentioned spat until I can get back to the kitchen store. What do you think is the best material(s) to scrape up the fond when deglazing? What what you like to use; etc? Just last night, the two other pans I ordered arrived: The "Try Me" 7" Saucier (curved sides) and the 11" Saucier (curved sides). I haven't given them a workout yet since they just got here, but I did make some Chai tea in the small Saucier last night. It poured out of the pan beautifully (no dribbling like the pans with no lips), the milk was easy to deal with since I could control the heat and didn't have to worry about burning or overboiling, and this hefty, solid pan sat solidly on the burner--even when empty, NO tipping. I have used a really cute little All-Clad MC2 1QT saucier for such tasks in the past, and the tipping really irks me. It even tipped a little when full. Pans that cost as much as All-Clad does, IMO, should be manufactured heavily enough so that they do not not tip! Also, I had to melt a lot of butter for a baking recipe, and while I realize using s/s lined copper for this purpose may be akin to driving a Ferrari around the block at 20mph, it was nonetheless a pleasure. My previous pan for melting butter was a Calphalon butter warmer (with a lid! it was a very cute lid, but so tiny, it almost seemed like a toy and wasn't terribly practical!. It worked find for melting butter, at least so long as you held the handle to keep it from tipping, and of course, that handle got hot quicker than any other pan I've ever owned. Plus, with the Falk, I was able to keep a low flame and melt slowly, which was nice as it gave me time to assemble the rest of the baking ingredients in the meantime. And since it didn't get all sizzling hot like it did in the Calphalon, I didn't have to wait too long for it to cool (the recipe called for melted butter to cool first before combining). It's a small thing, but not having to wait for butter-that-got-too-hot-while-melting-due-to-hard-to-control-pan to cool was really a nice change of pace. (Sam, I am sure by now you're probably wondering why I just didn't melt the butter in the microwave--as my counterspace is pretty limited, I got rid of it (as well as my toaster, I just use the oven) when I moved in. I really don't miss it at all, though at first I thought I would. In particular, I discovered by necessity that leftover take-out anything tastes better when reheated in the over. Plus, I'd rather give the precious real estate up for a food-processor and my next purchase--a stand mixer.) Anyway, I will report back with more on the Falk once I've had more of a chance to use the pans that just came in. I cannot thank you enough, Sam, for this course, and the terrific opportunity to ask you follow-up questions. In the week that I've started with just that one piece of copper (the fry pan), my food has tasted better, plus it's been more fun to cook! ~Cindy

Sam, This gave me a GIANT chuckle. I am a residential interior designer and the firm I used to work for was lucky to have many clients with rather big budgets. We were often working on brand new construction. Of course, this always mean that there was the requisite gourmet kitchen. I always had to laugh, because we would do things like buy "copper" cookware as accessories, to make it look like these people...ahem... knew how to cook. And what is funny is that now that after I got divorced and had to sell the house with the really awesome kitchen, I now have a much smaller and less "designed" kitchen and a half-sized, bare bones gas stove that looks like it came from the 60's, yet my cooking is better than it ever has been despite the lack of granite countertops and stainless steel appliances. I remember back when I was in design school I went on a local multi-house kitchen tour of all these houses that had remodeled their kitchens and now sported "Designer Kitchens". It was kind of like a Designer Showhouse event and benefitted a charity. The kitchens were all nice enough, but some of them were so impractical. I recall one of them had a stove, I think it was a Jenn-Air, with two burners. It was a huge house! I couldn't figure it out how anyone was every going to get much cooking done, particularly if they were going to be entertaining! I do have to admit, though, that while I agree with you that pans should be used, I have been a bit of a freak when deciding what pans to order since, even though I know that performance should come first, the aesthetics were a big consideration for me (it's a job hazard!). I did go ahead and order the Falk (it just came, I will post about it in another post), but I *really* had to think about whether I was willing to invest so much in copper pans and not have a shiny finish. Kind of silly, I know!

Hello JAZ, For someone like me who isn't very experienced in tasting spirits (and thus far isn't a big cocktail drinker), this course was a great place to start. My problem is, I've never really been able to successfully acquire a taste for cocktails because of "the burn". I feel like a mutant. I've had champagne cocktails that I've liked, and a mojito, when it isn't too strong, can be quite nice. And, yeah, I've had my share of sweet drinks (mostly after dinner) and port (tawny, don't like the ruby). The spirits at full strength sting in such a way that it is hard for me to get over. The "warmth" aspect is pleasant, but the burn--it tingles in an unpleasant way that I find similar to a Halls cough drop. In other words, I think I have the palette of a complete whimp! The flavor of the things I tried (gin, vodka, rum, tequila, vermouth, brandy and a few liquers) were fine--it was the sting I object to. Though, admitedly, with the liquers, well, they are sweet enough that the sting wasn't a big deal and I could probably sip a small bit of it on the rocks after a meal without issue. Of course, when I read your recipes, my mouth started to water when I saw ingredients like lemon, lime, etc. I mean, yes, those things in a drink sound good! For what it's worth--I am a novice wine drinker too, but this goes down easier though I still can usually only manage a glass. Champagne is no problem. Beer--never developed a taste for it (was probably though to be an alien imposter in college). So, being that my spirits taste test was so hard on my mouth, I am a little unsure as how to proceed. I almost want to go to a really good bar (one with a reputation for having knowledgable/talented bar staff) when they are slow and get educated, but it sounds kind of expensive. (sigh) Thanks again for the class, and for encouraging the taste test experiment! If you have any idea about what I might try to "dip my toe in the pool" I'd be quite grateful. Sincerely, Cindy

Two years late to this lesson but it was great nonetheless! I used the Julia method on some poached eggs, but they didn't come out as neatly as I thought they would. When out of their shells and in the water they still looked like jellyfish. Of course, it may have to do with the fact that I couldn't find the white vinegar and thus had to use white wine vinegar instead...who knows if this mattered. But, as I was hungry and didn't want to experiment at that moment and already had two failed attempts at poached eggs, I decided to use the saran wrap trick mentioned above. Boy, do I like that trick! So much so, that I've used it several times in the past week instead of practicing the regular way. One thing I found out the hard way, today, while making my lunch, is that spraying oil on the saran wrap is REALLY important! Otherwise the egg really sticks! Anyway, thanks for this great course--my eggs are a lot more appetizing looking now, and easy to make! I will practice more, no doubt, since I am really enjoying getting to eat my practice-sessions! ~Cindy

That's a new one to me (not that I am anything but a novice!). What is it? Spatchcock. ← I meant I didn't know what the word "spatchcock" meant. But I figured it out. Honestly, I thought it was a word that you had made up or something, I was surprised to find hits for it when I Googled it. I feel silly having asked as it shows my green-ness. What's funny, though, is that my cooking is actually more competent than my apparently lack of cooking vocubulary would indicate. I've actually spatchcocked chickens before, but I just had no idea that this is what it was called--I thought I was butterflying it (having never heard the word spatchcock till you mentioned it!). And apparently I've also been braising for quite a while without knowing that this is what I was doing! (And I was even using the correct cookware!) Guess a lot of what I learned re: cooking has been a lot of monkey-see monkey-do, (from my mom) without proper vocabulary lessons! Anyway, I am finally getting ready to order the Falk. Just trying to decide if I want the flared or curved sides on the small saucier... Thanks Sam! Cindy

Two years late to this lesson but it was great nonetheless! I used the Julia method on some poached eggs, but they didn't come out as neatly as I thought they would. When out of their shells and in the water they still looked like jellyfish. Of course, it may have to do with the fact that I couldn't find the white vinegar and thus had to use white wine vinegar instead...who knows if this mattered. But, as I was hungry and didn't want to experiment at that moment and already had two failed attempts at poached eggs, I decided to use the saran wrap trick mentioned above. Boy, do I like that trick! So much so, that I've used it several times in the past week instead of practicing the regular way. One thing I found out the hard way, today, while making my lunch, is that spraying oil on the saran wrap is REALLY important! Otherwise the egg really sticks! Anyway, thanks for this great course--my eggs are a lot more appetizing looking now, and easy to make! ~Cindy

That's a new one to me (not that I am anything but a novice!). What is it?

Thanks, this is good to know. Aside from price considerations, since I am already planning to buy a saucier in the 11", do you think that it would make more sense to get the smaller one in the fait tout/straight sided configuration instead of curved? I know--you wanna know what I am going to use it for--well--sauces in small quantities (for one or two people), as well as more pedestrian uses where a saucier is overkill...

Okay, this is all coming together much more in my head now. And thankfully I've already got the Le Creuset French Oven. So in that sense I am in better shape than I thought. In fact, one of the Scanpan pots (that I had itemized way upthread) that I got rid of was referred to as a Dutch Oven, and for the life of me I have no idea why I bought that pot AND the Le Creuset. At least I don't have to replace that Scanpan, now, though, thanks to your great answers to my queries! I apologize--when I had asked some of the questions above (about braising, and casseroles/French oven/Dutch over, it had been a while since I read the course--indeed, all of the answers were in there! It was a good refresher to read it anew, well worth the time. Ah, good (letting out sigh of relief). This was the only remaining concern I had about getting the Falk. So I am finally going to get some. In addition to the 11" saucier and 11" fry pan, I am considering the "try me" sized saucier. Sam, I recall you said you own that piece. In general, I find pieces of cookware whose overall width is smaller than the size of the burner to be "tippy", which I find greatly annoying. Since copper is dense, I imagine that this "Try Me" piece would be heavier than a somewhat similarly sized piece of All-Clad (1 qt saucier). In your experience (I've seen the photos of your stovetop where you demo an alternative way to cook an omelette) do you have any problems with the Try Me Falk piece being unbalanced? Thanks again, Sam, for all the handholding. This has all been so helpful! ~Cindy

Sam, Sorry, another question for you. I have seen a few posts upthread in which people commented that they find the interiors of the Falk Culinair to be "greyish" on the inside and thus not to their liking as they find the greyish color impedes their ability to judge changes in color/browning. I know that you have some Falk, and also I see you mentioned that you have some All-Clad MC2. The interior of the MC2 is not shiny stainless, but rather, it is sort of matte due to a pattern of concentric circles in the metal. As I am familiar with the look and color of the interior of an MC2 pan, I was hoping I might ask you to take a peek into the interior of your Falk and MC2 and tell me if they look similar in color and finish? I am finally getting ready to buy some copper and want to make sure that I won't dislike it for some oddball reason that isn't directly related to performance, but that might matter to me. Safer to know this stuff before I shell out the money! Thanks, Cindy