Disk Bottom or Single Gauge Stock Pots

[Shel_B]

I like to make stock, broth, and soup, and am fussy about technique and ingredients. I need a new stock pot and have looked at a few that might be suitable. They are all single gauge pots. However, I am on a fixed income, and don't have a lot of disposable income at this point, so if I can save some money I'm all for it.

What advantage does a single gauge pot have over a disk bottomed pot, assuming both are of good quality and materials? Apart from a couple of small items, all my cookware is single gauge, and I'm quite happy with the way they cook. Will I notice any difference between a single gauge and a disk bottom stock pot, and if so, what might that difference be?

FWIW, I'm not too interested in brand recommendations specifically, but more interested in the technical and practical advantages and disadvantages of the two types of construction. Thanks!

[slkinsey]

There is no advantage to a straight gauge design in a stock pot -- provided that what you're really talking about is a stock pot.

[Shel_B]

There is no advantage to a straight gauge design in a stock pot -- provided that what you're really talking about is a stock pot.

Is there a disadvantage to a straight gauge pot? When using a disk-bottomed pot, does more heat concentrate at the bottom, and, if so, how does that effect the overall heating of the entire contents of the pot? Might there be instances where more or less heat conducted by the sides has an advantage or disadvantage? Could the thickness or material of the disk outweigh or be offset by a good single gauge design?

Edited February 28, 2010 by Shel_B (log)

[Edward J]

Never understod the concept of single guage pots. They develop hot spots, and are prone to warping and dings.

A "sandwich botom" pot does not warp and provides even heating, although it takes a bit longer to heat up.

The cheapest option is also the most expensive--buy a good quality sandwich bottom pot. You can use this to make stocks, but also soups, stew, canning, etc. It makes no sense to buy a cheap stock pot and have it sit in a closet for weeks at a time. The more use you get out of a single item, the better use you have of your money.

[Shel_B]

Never understod the concept of single guage pots. They develop hot spots, and are prone to warping and dings.

A "sandwich botom" pot does not warp and provides even heating, although it takes a bit longer to heat up.

The cheapest option is also the most expensive--buy a good quality sandwich bottom pot. You can use this to make stocks, but also soups, stew, canning, etc. It makes no sense to buy a cheap stock pot and have it sit in a closet for weeks at a time. The more use you get out of a single item, the better use you have of your money.

I think you misunderstood me, and perhaps I didn't explain too well. I'm not talking about cheap pots, but rather pots like All-Clad, Calphalon, or other heavy, quality pots. I believe I said straight gauge.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Shel_B (log)

[slkinsey]

Is there a disadvantage to a straight gauge pot? When using a disk-bottomed pot, does more heat concentrate at the bottom, and, if so, how does that effect the overall heating of the entire contents of the pot? Might there be instances where more or less heat conducted by the sides has an advantage or disadvantage? Could the thickness or material of the disk outweigh or be offset by a good single gauge design?

The main disadvantages are (1) that straight gauge pans cost a LOT more than disk-bottom pots, and (2) that you can get a LOT more thermal material in a disk bottom than you can with a straight gauge design (my stock pot has a 7 mm aluminum disk on the bottom -- more than twice as much aluminum than any straight gauge design will give you).

In addition, the tall/narrow design of a stock pot is just not one where conducting heat up the sides is important or valuable. Why would it be?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Just for the record, I have two Mauviel tin-lined hammered copper stock pots, and as heavy copper goes they don't come that thick, so even Mauviel doesn't seem to think that a heavy straight gauge stockpot is a necessity. The 9.5" is 2mm thick (that's the one in my avatar), and the 11" is 3mm, so my sense is that they make them thick enough to support their structure, but not as heavy as, say, a saute pan or a rondeau in the same line. They do maintain a nice steady low simmer without need for much attention, and I think they heat up and cool down relatively quickly, but above a certain size, the volume of the liquid is a more important determinant of a stockpot's cooking qualities than the material the pot is made out of. Of course a heavy bottom is desirable if you want to be able to brown things in the bottom of the pot.

[Blether]

Is there a disadvantage to a straight gauge pot? When using a disk-bottomed pot, does more heat concentrate at the bottom, and, if so, how does that effect the overall heating of the entire contents of the pot? Might there be instances where more or less heat conducted by the sides has an advantage or disadvantage? Could the thickness or material of the disk outweigh or be offset by a good single gauge design?

I would say that, as long as you're making stock, broth and soup, there's no practical difference between the two in terms of the aspects you list. For these preparations, you most commonly want to keep a large, mainly liquid volume at a constant temperature near boiling. You're only putting a small amount of heat in. Ultimately, more conductive pot sides will dissipate more heat into the air, but in terms of what that'll cost you in the present day, my guess is it's minimal.

You will probably want a stock pot that, clad or disk-bottomed, has enough on the base to ensure even heating, so you can saute or sweat a base for a soup easily. My understanding is anything with a minimum 2mm of copper, or 5-6mm of aluminium in the base will suit. Why worry how thick the sides are ?

It seems to me your deciding criterion will be cost. Good straight gauge typically costs more, but if someone's giving them away, a straight gauge pot may be your answer. If you can accept some fuss in place of spending more, you might go with a cheap, thin straight-gauge pan, accepting that it'll not be so good for sauteeing / sweating and you might need to dirty another pan.

[slkinsey]

I'll add that the main reason you want a thick conductive base is because, if you plan on keeping a large volume of stock (i.e., "liquid plus stuff") on the stove for an extended period of time, you want to make sure you don't get any hot spots. There's nothing worse than getting burned flavors in that stock you just spend 8 hours making.

IMO, the two features you want in a stock pot are:

(1) It should have a thick enough conductive base that you eliminate the possibility of hot spots, scorching, burning, etc. (I'd say that the ability to brown things in a stock pot is not important, because this is extremely impractical in a real stock pot due to the height to diameter ratio.)

(2) The height of the pot should be approximately equal to the diameter of the pan, in order to minimize evaporation. David's picture is a good example. That's why I said "real" stock pot. There are plenty of pots people call "stock pots" (e.g., Le Creuset casseroles) that are not actually stock pots.

[tim]

Hi,

I am highly reluctant to enter this conversation but just may have a few points to clarify the discussion.

Will I notice any difference between a single gauge and a disk bottom stock pot, and if so, what might that difference be?

...straight gauge pans cost a LOT more than disk-bottom pots....

...in terms of what that'll cost you in the present day, my guess is it's minimal.

Actually, the cost differential can be significant. How about over $200 for an All-Clad or Calphalon straight guage 8 quart stockpot, that is not very thick (2.5mm) and is not that tall/narrow shape? But sometimes they do give the thinner Calphalon anodized aluminum pans away for less than $70.

and (2) that you can get a LOT more thermal material in a disk bottom than you can with a straight gauge design (my stock pot has a 7 mm aluminum disk on the bottom -- more than twice as much aluminum than any straight gauge design will give you).

You will probably want a stock pot that, clad or disk-bottomed, has enough on the base to ensure even heating, so you can saute or sweat a base for a soup easily. My understanding is anything with a minimum 2mm of copper, or 5-6mm of aluminium in the base will suit. Why worry how thick the sides are ?

The important point is that extra-thick disc. They can be hard to find and the vast majority of stockpots have thin 2.5mm discs; this includes All-Clad's disc bottomed stockpots. The Sitram Profiserie line has a 12 quart tall/narrow stockpot with that 8mm aluminum disc for just over $100. Stiram Stockpot

Good luck,

Tim

[Blether]

...

...in terms of what that'll cost you in the present day, my guess is it's minimal.

Actually, the cost differential can be significant. How about over $200 for an All-Clad or Calphalon straight guage 8 quart stockpot...

Hi, Tim. I think you missed my intention. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to the cost of fuel wasted / passed on to heat up the kitchen. You'll have Sam laughing, because he knows I'm no fan of All-clad's cladware - for cost reasons in particular.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Blether (log)

[David A. Goldfarb]

As another reference point for cost, I think I paid about $55 new for my 40 quart Korean 4mm-aluminum stock pot from a restaurant supply in the Bowery. I bought it more for things like lobster than stock. Unless I was planning to load up my freezer with glace de viande, I don't think I have anywhere to put 40 quarts of stock.

[paulraphael]

Yeah, those straight gauge heavy aluminum ones might be the cheapest option that performs well. I have a 20qt version from the restaurant store. Only drawback is that the bare aluminum is reactive with acidic foods, so it wouldn't be a great choice for something like 20 quarts of chili. For stocks or poaching big things they're great.

[Edward J]

I think you misunderstood me, and perhaps I didn't explain too well. I'm not talking about cheap pots, but rather pots like All-Clad, Calphalon, or other heavy, quality pots. I believe I said straight gauge.

No, I don't think I missunderstood you, in your first post you stated that you were on a fixed income and wanted to save money where possible. My advice, and others has been to buy a good quality disc bottomed pot, and use this pot for stock making, as well as all the other uses a good pot can offer you.

The typical design of a stock pot--tall and narrow-- has nothing to do with making stock, but rather with real estate: A narrow pot uses much less space on a stove top, and most of the kitchens in Europe have "french tops"-- gas fired solid steel tops (no individual burners) or electric solid tops. The stock pot also does double duty in the bain-marie holding hot sauces and soups, and again, the smaller footprint is adventagous.

As many others have posted, it is worth your while to buy from restaurant supply stores for cookware. Unless you can get brand name cookware at a discounted price, or as a gift, the money spent for brand name could be better spent elsewhere.

For most s/s cookware, they are produced in Asia that makes lines for many other companies, and most of the cookware starts off the same. The differences may be a thicker guage for the high end stuff, but the major dfference between brand name and restaurant quality is the finish: High end has a mirror finish, whereas restaurant quality has a brushed finish. This has no effect on cooking, and the mirror finish needs more maintainence than a brushed finish

Aluminum cookware is still produced in N.America, but the disadvantages of untreated (non-anodized) aluminum far outwiegh the advantages. The advantages are price, weight, and heat conductivity. The disadvantages are warping, pitting, leaky rivets, reactions to acidic ingredients, and the constant oxidization that leaves that nice icky black/grey film on your contertops, shelves, stove, hands, skin, and clothing.

Hope this helps

[slkinsey]

The typical design of a stock pot--tall and narrow-- has nothing to do with making stock, but rather with real estate: A narrow pot uses much less space on a stove top, and most of the kitchens in Europe have "french tops"-- gas fired solid steel tops (no individual burners) or electric solid tops. The stock pot also does double duty in the bain-marie holding hot sauces and soups, and again, the smaller footprint is adventagous.

I'm going to disagree with this assertion. The reason a stock pot is tall and narrow is because the whole point of making stock is to end up with plenty of, well, stock. It is therefore disadvantageous to have a lot of your liquid evaporate while you are making the stock. The approximately 1:1 ratio of diameter to height that a stock pot has minimizes evaporation while still providing sufficient heat transfer into the liquid, so that you can simmer the stock for a long time and still wind up with plenty of liquid.

This becomes obvious when attempting to make a long-simmered stock in, say, a cooking vessel with the geometry of a casserole (e.g., a Le Creuset) which has a 2:1 ratio of diameter to height. You end up with a lot more evaporation.