Non-stick Oven-safe

[Katie Meadow]

I want a large size fry pan with curved sides that are at least 1.75 inches high. I asked about this in the tarte tatin topic because that was initially what I intended to use the pan for: stove-top carmelizing and then finish in the oven. Several recipes, including the one I want to make, call for a non-stick oven-safe pan.

The responders in the tarte tatin topic were more interested in the software aspects of tarte tatin than the hardware, so I thought I would try a different topic.

I do have some cast-iron pans, but they are not the size I need and are too heavy, so I don't want that.

I don't own any so-called non-stick coated pans. The new ones look improved over the old teflon, but they still seem creepy. At the restaurant supply place two floor-salespeople had opposing views: one said I could use Lincoln Wear-ever (aluminum with a coating) in the oven, one said they wouldn't do it. Can they be used in the oven? Would the apples carmelize well on such a surface?

What about carbon steel (black steel, blue steel, black iron--whatever you wanna call it)? I do have a very nice old carbon steel omelet pan that I rarely use (it's far too small for my new tarte tatin project) and it does seem to be seasoned well enough so the egg slides right off. Would the carmelized apple tarte free itself easily when turned upside down if the carbon steel pan were well seasoned? Such a pan might be more useful for a variety of other things as well.

Any thoughts?

[Dave the Cook]

To answer your main question, a pan constructed with recent PTFE (Teflon) formulation and application techniques -- pretty much anything made by a reputable manufacturer in the last five or six years -- is oven-safe to at least 450F. The coating itself is good for higher temperatures, but it's best not to push it.

Caramelization is simply a matter of temperature, isn't it? If that's correct, then you shouldn't have a problem.

From what I know about carbon steel pans (which isn't much), I think they would work, too.

[tim]

Katie,

Other than the sides, a well-seasoned carbon steel paella pan or skillet should be perfect for tate tatin. These pans are completely non-stick after proper seasoning. DeBuyer used to make these pans in France. They are now made in China and supplied by World Cuisine.

To get a pan that is 1 3/4" high, you need a larger pan. The 11 7/8" Carbon Steel Paella is 1 5/8" high. The 14 1/8" Carbon Steel Paella is 2" deep.

These pans are also wonderful roasting pans and really good for frying, even omelets. The price is also attractive although they might wear out after a few hundred years.

Tim

Edited December 3, 2008 by tim (log)

[dougal]

Creepy?

Non-stick Teflon may be unpleasant to manufacture, but as long as you don't burn the coating, it should be perfectly safe - heck they even use the material for implanted bionic bits.

Teflon is used for roasting tins, and should be safe in any normal oven. ('Normal' does not include eGulleteer Infernoo's oven!)

The handle is much more likely to be problematic!

Caramelising on non-stick is no problem - though it can be more difficult to see exactly what is going on because of the dark colour.

My tarte tatin pan is a LeCreuset "omelette pan" (with their non-stick lining and a plain cast iron handle). Yes, its heavy, but it is cast iron! And its not as deep as you'd like - which is deep.

I have an aluminium frying pan, that seems to be hard anodised, but also has some form of non-stick coating on the inside. For fish and steak it gets used on the stove top initially, and then finished more slowly in a low/medium oven. It works very well.

It wasn't the cheapest pan in Asda (the UK's Walmart), but very few could call it at all expensive. Nearly two years on, its lasting much better than I'd expected.

I gather that uncoated stainless steel, with a copper base, is considered ideal for SEEING what is happening in the pan, so you can properly control the degree of caramelisation. Those I've used like that have been rather disappointingly 'sticky' pans. Probably too thin on the base, as the way of making them affordable!

Edited December 3, 2008 by dougal (log)