Copper vs Aluminum

[paulraphael]

I don't think that the necesary responsiveness of can't be achieved with heavy aluminum. I've never felt like my heavt aluminum cookware was holding me back. But I find that for sautéing and making pan sauces, a more responsive pan (copper or lighter clad aluminum) makes the job easier and more enjoyable.

[slkinsey]

This will to a certain extend be affected by the BTU output of the stove. If it's a restaurant-style burner, one can easily maintain an appropriately high temperature with a copper saute pan (or a carbon steel saute pan for that matter). With a home stove, however, in order to maintain those high sauteing temperatures that will keep pieces of meat jumping around in the pan and browning on all sides without giving up too much liquid and starting to boil in their juices, I think it's beneficial to have the higher thermal capacity an extra-thick aluminum base provides. Otherwise, the food must be cooked in small batches in order to keep the temperature up. In my book that's not easier or more enjoyable.

[takadi]

Well considering the fact that I have a pretty terrible stove, I don't think it's impossible to properly sear meat and even form a crispy crust on steak. I do it all the time with my cast iron pan. I just wish it had more responsiveness and I would be good to go

[paulraphael]

I have a low BTU stove too. I find myself more limited by pan size than pan material. I can run out of capacity pretty easily with big pans no matter what the material (cast iron, heavy copper, heavy aluminum, spun steel) but always have plenty of power to brown mightily in the smaller pans

[Matt_T]

I know what Paul is talking about with responsiveness. The big Tramontina I raved about above does take a long time to heat, which can be an issue when cooking several course on a 30" range. And it holds so much heat that when making a pan sauce the amount of deglazing liquid called for by most recipes boils away rapidly and completely to a sludge....even when added with the pan off the heat. I've learned to either add extra water along with the wine/brandy/whatever or (more often) just double the sauce to prevent this.

But I'm not tempted at all to go back to thinner bottomed pans. In years of cooking with "clad" and thin-disk pans, I had great trouble getting a good sear or crust without burnt spots. The Tramontina sears beautifully, and the excess heat-retention "problem" of the thick-bottomed pan is easily dealt with by modifying the amount of deglazing liquid; much harder to get good results if I can't get a good sear in the first place.

To be fair, I've only used knockoff "clad" pans that were thinner than All-Clad. Maybe the real brand name pans strike a good balance. My old Calphalon Commercial offers a great balance of heat retention and responsiveness, as close as I've had in my limited experience to ideal, but it's significantly thicker than the aluminum layer in All-Clad.

MT

[tim]

To be fair, I've only used knockoff "clad" pans that were thinner than All-Clad.  Maybe the real brand name pans strike a good balance.  My old Calphalon Commercial offers a great balance of heat retention and responsiveness, as close as I've had in my limited experience to ideal, but it's significantly thicker than the aluminum layer in All-Clad.

MT

←

MT,

You may be surprised to know that All-Clad Stainless (0.1") is no thicker than most of the knockoff clad pans. It is about the same thickness as fully clad pans sold by Sears Kenmore (about $20 per pan/lid), Tramontina, Anolon, Calphalon, Gourmet Standard, Sur La Table and Cuisinart.

Most anodized aluminum pans are significantly thicker than the A-C Stainless.

Tim

Edit to add: I have measured each of these pans with a micrometer. Some of these makers have issued different lines and in a few cases, one of the lines has thinner cladding. ie: Anolon, Calphalon, Tramontina. Gourmet Standard's Professional line is the same thickness as the A-C Stainless.

Tim

Edited October 2, 2007 by tim (log)

[Matt_T]

Calphalon Tri-Ply is the only knockoff I've seen that's really similar in thickness to AC stainless. The stainless lining in Calphalon appears to be slightly thicker, which might be an illusion resulting from sloppier forming of the pan or it might really be thicker, which could affect performance (in a bad way). I tried a Calphalon Tri-ply saute and was not happy at all with the performance, but it was my first stainless pan and I probably didn't give it enough of a try to be fair before returning it.

I've either owned or made close comparisons of Anolon, Tramontina, Macys "Professional," and Gourmet Standard clad pans, and they are all significantly thinner than AC stainless. The aluminum layer in a 10" Tramontina omelette pan is 2/3 as thick as a similar AC, at most.

I've heard Cuisinart Multiclad Pro is similar thickness to AC stainless, but have never actually seen one of these pans.

If I went AC I wouldn't go stainless anyway....I'd go MC2, or LTD if I were feeling flush. According to SLK's article these offer thicker aluminum layers, and my experience suggests the anodized exterior of the LTD should hold up better cosmetically than a stainless exterior.

MT

[slkinsey]

If I went AC I wouldn't go stainless anyway....I'd go MC2, or LTD if I were feeling flush.  According to SLK's article these offer thicker aluminum layers, and my experience suggests the anodized exterior of the LTD should hold up better cosmetically than a stainless exterior.

For the record: My article is due for some updating in a few areas, and this is one of them. All-Clad has changed its specifications since I got my data, and the aluminum in the MC line in particular seems to be quite a bit thinner.

Also, fwiw, I think anodized aluminum is a much bigger maintenance hassle than stainless.

[Matt_T]

I saw a comment, forget which thread, that MC2 was thinner than it used to be but I thought it still offered thicker aluminum than the Stainless line? That was my impression, also, when I compared the two in a store some months ago, but I could be wrong, and the MC2 on display could have been old stock.

More and more, I want to stop messing around and just get the Falk. (Hope my bride is reading this, Christmas isn't too far away..... )

As far as maintenance, anodized aluminum has been our mainstay since we got a set of Magnatlite Professional for our wedding 15 years ago, and I added some Calphalon Commercial pieces several years back that have seen heavy use. More recently, I've been adding stainless pans as I find them at the right price. Crud does stick to the anodized exterior of the CC more than with the stainless, but it cleans up quite easily with Barkeeper's Friend. The stainless on the other hand scratches much more easily, and water spots from our very hard water are a problem. The stainless must be towel dried immediately or they develop a pox of tenacious spots; the anodized I can let drip-dry in the rack and they don't spot at all.

Bottom line: our stainless pans are a fraction of the age of the anodized, yet the anodized look newer. That's been my experience, anyway, others' mileage will vary of course, with so many variables in how people store, wash, and handle their pans.

MT

[paulraphael]

Also, fwiw, I think anodized aluminum is a much bigger maintenance hassle than stainless.

I have a bunch of 17 year old calphalon, and the cooking surfaces have gotten beaten to hell ... knicks, dents, dings, and faded anodizing. But the outside surfaces, including the parts that get banged and scraped across stove grates, have held up beautifully. It's curious.

In general, I much prefer stainless as a cooking surface. Only drawback is it's easier to scratch, so you have to be careful what kinds of chemicals and scrubbers you use. I don't really care what the outside of the pans look like. If my stainless all clad pan gets scratched and discolored on the bottom, great ... people will know it's been cooked with!

[slkinsey]

I saw a comment, forget which thread, that MC2 was thinner than it used to be but I thought it still offered thicker aluminum than the Stainless line?

MC is still thicker than Stainless. But it's not as thick as it used to be.

Also, fwiw, I think anodized aluminum is a much bigger maintenance hassle than stainless.

I have a bunch of 17 year old calphalon, and the cooking surfaces have gotten beaten to hell ... knicks, dents, dings, and faded anodizing. But the outside surfaces, including the parts that get banged and scraped across stove grates, have held up beautifully. It's curious.

I find that oil and high temperature cooking inevitably equals spots on the exterior of an anodized aluminum pan that are far more tenacious than the worst tarnish I've ever got on the outside of a copper pan. Some spots can be tenacious on the outside of stainless as well, but with stainless you can always just spray the pan down with oven cleaner and leave it in a plastic bag overnight. You can't do this with anodized aluminum without ruining the pan.

[budrichard]

All Clad will not give out the thicknesses of the various layers claiming 'propietary Information', I know as I tried to obtain thier 'Copper Core' thicknesses. So, outside of sectioning a pan, the only measurement one can use is total thickness, all the rest is speculation. I also believe that All Clad is sourcing some if not all, from off shore. So, todays All Clad is not the All Clad of yesterday.

If not choosing a commercial copper quality pot/pan, I would go with what looked good and met my budget and not worry about branding because its all marketing today and all the rest is useless speculation.

The only way to determine which of the aluminum Pots/pans are good/best is to obtain samples of each of approximately the same dimensions and conduct controlled tests to evaluate heat transfer. Subjective ratings of the construction, look and feel would also be done.

-Dick

[paulraphael]

I find that oil and high temperature cooking inevitably equals spots on the exterior of an anodized aluminum pan that are far more tenacious...

i find that too. i don't worry about it much because it's just cosmetic (and the dark finish hides it pretty well ....) i was talking more about how well the finish itself holds up.

[slkinsey]

Oh yea, the finish holds up fine. However, for 100% anodized aluminum, I find that those spots tend to be "sticky spots" on the pan. This is one reason I no longer cook on anodized aluminum surfaces (I do have some nonstick with anodized aluminum exteriors).

[tim]

HI,

I've spent quite a few years taking my micrometer into cookware stores.

The original Masterchef skillet was 0.145" thick. Then the pans showed up at 0.135" to 0.137" thick. They held this weight until the MC-2 was created.

Yes, most Masterchef and LTD pans are 35% thicker than the Stainless pans. The MC-2 pans are 20% thicker than the Stainless pans.

When All-Clad dropped the Masterchef and created the MC-2 line, they reduced the thickness of the pans from 0.135" to 0.120".

Then there is "Mystery-Clad" which I spotted in Minneapolis last year. It was MC-2 with a 0.135" thick "Masterchef" pan base.

Tim