Ideal copper pans?

[Dakki]

What would your ideal copper pans be like?

Be specific. I want to know the shapes and sizes, lined vs plated (not limited to tin here - my business is mostly about plating stuff, often with pretty exotic materials. I just need to find out which are food safe), thickness, lids, handle material(s), how they're attached, everything.

We're talking a super-premium product so go nuts.

[slkinsey]

There really is not much question here. If you are talking about copper cookware that will be used for cooking, as opposed to simply display pieces for plating, then what you want is 2.5mm stainless-lined copper with an iron handle. Period.

They do make stainless lined copper cookware with a stainless steel handle, but it's not clear that there is much benefit to be gained from having a stainless steel handle (it will take longer to get hot, but on the other hand it will stay hot a lot longer compared to iron) and anyway the stainless lined copper cookware with a stainless steel handle is only 2.0mm thick.

As for the lids... you just want one that fits and is easy to clean. Most of the copper cookware manufacturers do produce a stainless lined copper lid, but there is absolutely no functional point to having the lids made of this material and they are a needless hassle to keep clean. Just buy a reasonably sturdy stainless lid in the appropriate diameter.

The three companies most known for making stainless lined heavy copper are, in alphabetical order, Bourgeat, Falk Culinair and Mauviel. Other than some design details such as handle positioning, size of the rivets, polished versus brushed external and interior surfaces, rolled versus straight lip, and some minor differences in shape, the stainless lined heavy copper produced by these three manufacturers is functionally identical (indeed, they are all made from the copper-stainless bimetal produced by Falk Culinair). Which brand you prefer comes down to personal preference as to the above-mentioned details, and budget (there can be notable differences in price). I happen to prefer Falk Culinair, but YMMV.

The shapes and sizes you want will depend on what cooking you want to do. In my opinion, there are better design and materials choices for many cooking tasks (e.g., heavy stainless steel with a thick aluminum or copper base is better for a stockpot).

Edited May 18, 2010 by slkinsey (log)

[bmdaniel]

The shapes and sizes you want will depend on what cooking you want to do. In my opinion, there are better design and materials choices for many cooking tasks (e.g., heavy stainless steel with a thick aluminum or copper base is better for a stockpot).

Which tasks/pans would you say this is the ideal material for? Frying pan and sauce pan?

[slkinsey]

Upon re-reading the OP, maybe you're thinking of manufacturing these pans? That's a tough one. It's hard to beat a stainless lining, and as far as I know it is extremely difficult to bond copper to stainless. It's hard to imagine why someone would prefer a different pan (especially an expensive one) over the currently available stainless-lined brands unless you were somehow able to plate the copper with a very thin layer of something equally durable and nonreactive.

I guess my dream pan would be something like 2.5mm of copper fully clad both externally and internally with a 0.1mm layer of stainless steel, in the traditional shapes, and having a heavy stainless steel handle. The idea being to have all the benefits of heavy copper in the traditional designs with the added benefit of being dishwasher-safe.

Well-fitting heavy stainless lids are still the best option, IMO. No one who actually uses his copper cookware likes those copper lids.

[Dakki]

Thank you for your responses.

Clarification - I'm not looking for advice on buying copper pans, I want to make them commercially (on a very small scale) and I want to know what you guys would like to see.

So, go nuts.

[slkinsey]

The shapes and sizes you want will depend on what cooking you want to do. In my opinion, there are better design and materials choices for many cooking tasks (e.g., heavy stainless steel with a thick aluminum or copper base is better for a stockpot).

Which tasks/pans would you say this is the ideal material for? Frying pan and sauce pan?

Real frying pan (i.e., with widely sloping and short sides, not one of these "frypans" that is the same basic shape as a saute pan with curved sides)

Sauce pans that will be used for actual sauce making (i.e., not the kind used for boiling thin liquids, steaming vegetables, etc.)

Reduction pans

Large saute pans or large sauteuses evasee (not so much for the task of sauteing, which I think is usually done better with an extra-thick disk bottom design, but rather because straight gauge gives some added versatility)

[slkinsey]

Thank you for your responses.

Clarification - I'm not looking for advice on buying copper pans, I want to make them commercially (on a very small scale) and I want to know what you guys would like to see.

So, go nuts.

What are your manufacturing capabilities? Or, rather, what cladding materials do you think you will be able to use in combination with the copper? Just about every "artisinal" producer of copper cookware does the traditional tin lining, because they don't have the capability to do stainless.

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you want to market a product as "super premium," silver lining is considered a better conductor than tin and it has a higher melting point. Occasionally one sees old European copper pieces lined with silver, and there was I think a Georg Jensen line of copperware that had silver lining.

Some of the older hammered Mauviel tin-lined copper is heavier than 2.5mm--as much as 4mm in some cases. Heavier weight pieces today are described as "2.5-3.5mm" accounting for the effect of hammering.

Stainless lining is easy to clean and can handle higher temperatures, but tin is slicker and more sensitive to temperature changes. I have mostly tin and a couple of stainless pieces.

2.0mm copper isn't bad for pans when you want to be able to shake and flip ingredients. Ranhofer wrote that such pans should be thinner than other copperware, presumably for the same reason. I have a 2.0mm non-stick frypan that I use mostly for omelets, and it's perfect. I think I'd need to embark on a new exercise routine to be able to toss the contents of my 12" hammered copper saute pan at around 13 lbs. empty. With two hands I can do it a few times before it starts getting tiresome.

I like the traditional shapes, but the handle designs vary. The more modern Mauviel handles have a little more distance between the handle and the rim of the pot, so there is space for a wider variety of covers with overhanging lips. Older Mauviel handles tend to come much closer to the rim, because they were designed to work with the long handled weighted covers, which are wonderful (I have a 10" cover in this style) but expensive.

Edited May 18, 2010 by David A. Goldfarb (log)

[Dakki]

I have a machine shop. Our specialty is hard plating (tungsten carbide, stellite, etc) and we have HVOF, plasma equipment, Rokide system, etc. and we're actually looking at getting into electrodeposition as well. So as far as plating goes, basically the sky is the limit at this stage. I'll have to decide if the

end product warrants the cost at some later point.

Applying tungsten carbide to a conical shaft.

Tungsten carbide plated roller (superfinished).

Edited May 18, 2010 by Dakki (log)

[slkinsey]

Interesting

So... what durable nonreactive material do you contemplate plating the copper with? And in what thickness? Obviously, the point would be to plate the copper in the thinnest possible layer of durable nonreactive material so that you get the thermal benefits of copper and the reactivity benefits of the other stuff. The thicker the plating has to be, the more the thermal performance of the cookware is diminished.

As I said, anything that could give the thermal performance of 2.5mm copper but be 100% nonreactive and dishwasher safe would be highly desirable. Needless to say, the plating material would need to be able to withstand hard use, and also be a reasonably good cooking surface (although it's hard to know how anything could be more naturally sticky than stainless steel).

[slkinsey]

If the price were reasonable, a 2.5mm copper body coated inside and out with a very thin layer of tungsten carbide might be very interesting...

I guess the idea would be to find whatever material you could use that would be the hardest, toughest material you could use in the thinnest possible layer that would also have reasonably good thermal properties. I would imagine that, even if the layer of the nonreactive material were very thin, having very poor thermal properties would reduce the performance of the pan. For example, enameled cast iron is far inferior to regular cast iron at browning meats, etc.

[paulraphael]

I imagine most platings would be so thin as to have pretty negligible thermal properties. I'd be curious about the longevity of the plating in actual use. I've found the anodized layer on aluminum to be less durable than I'd like (I believe aluminum oxide is comparable in hardness to tungsten carbide but I don't know about the other relevent properties). The anodizing is very abrasion resistant, but it's reactive over time, and the soft base metal makes the pans susceptible to pits and gouges, which lead to the anodizing coming off.

What are the reactive properties of tungsten carbide? It's cool that it's shiny like that ... I assumed it would be dark. I much prefer bright metal to dark surfaces for most pans ... at least ones that will be used for browning food or reducing sauces.

[Peter the eater]

What would your ideal copper pans be like?

Be specific. I want to know the shapes and sizes, lined vs plated (not limited to tin here - my business is mostly about plating stuff, often with pretty exotic materials. I just need to find out which are food safe), thickness, lids, handle material(s), how they're attached, everything.

We're talking a super-premium product so go nuts.

I'd like thick copper, lined with primo stainless steel, through-rivet cast brass handles, hand-finished. 3 lids max for a set of 8 pots/pans, plus maybe an oval.

[Dakki]

I imagine most platings would be so thin as to have pretty negligible thermal properties. I'd be curious about the longevity of the plating in actual use. I've found the anodized layer on aluminum to be less durable than I'd like (I believe aluminum oxide is comparable in hardness to tungsten carbide but I don't know about the other relevent properties). The anodizing is very abrasion resistant, but it's reactive over time, and the soft base metal makes the pans susceptible to pits and gouges, which lead to the anodizing coming off.

What are the reactive properties of tungsten carbide? It's cool that it's shiny like that ... I assumed it would be dark. I much prefer bright metal to dark surfaces for most pans ... at least ones that will be used for browning food or reducing sauces.

Tungsten carbide (as applied using HVOF) goes from dark gray and rough (rather like a silicone carbide sharpening stone) to smooth, shiny dark gray when ground, then progressively more mirrorlike as you finish it more finely. The finish in that photo is RMS =<3, which is very smooth indeed.

Tungsten carbide itself is pretty much inert at much higher temperatures than you could apply to it on a stovetop or oven. Aluminum oxide is indeed very hard (I don't remember how it compares to tungsten carbide off the top of my head) but it's a lot less tough than a tungsten carbide cermet as applied in the HVOF process. In this process, the tungsten carbide particles (imagine them as bricks) are flung at very high speed at the substrate, together with powdered metal (nickel or cobalt, imagine it as mortar). The powders form a sort of brick wall, with the hard bricks stuck to each other and the substrate by a comparatively flexible mortar.

Getting off track here. If you could have custom-made pans with expense being no object, what would you order?

[paulraphael]

Getting off track here. If you could have custom-made pans with expense being no object, what would you order?

Ok, I'd want pans of varying thicknesses for different purposes. Bottoms can be thicker than the sides in most cases. Smaller saucepans can be thinner (2.25mm or so) on the bottoms for responsiveness; larger pans like saute pans, which need to distribute heat farther and retain heat can be thick (3.0 + mm). I'm making up numbers ... an engineer working with serious cooks could pin this down better.

Since you're plating and not using the pre-made laminated material, you should be able to make pans with varying thicknesses like this.

Definitely not brass for the handles ... to conductive. A cast stainless handle, that's easy to grab with or without a side towel, and that's solid but no so massive that it takes forever to cool down, would be ideal. Tradtitional iron also seems to work fine.

I'd also want the selection of pans to be limited to (or at least focus on) pans that make sense for expensive copper. There is no reason besides being a sculpture collector for having a copper stock pot. Saucepans (including a sloped or curve-sided range) are most important. Frying and sauté pans are also nice. A copper rondeau is a great luxury (i don't have one, but if I ever find myself weighed down with currency ... )

[David A. Goldfarb]

Copper stock pots do keep a nice even low simmer and react fairly quickly to temperature adjustments depending on how large they are, but I suspect a pot with a thick copper bottom should be similar. They are generally thinner than saute pans, frypans, and rondeaux, because they only need to be thick enough to support their structure. The 9.5" in my avatar is 2mm, and the 11" is more like 2.5-3mm. As they go up in size, I think there is less advantage to a copper stockpot, because the volume is increasing geometrically with respect to the area of the cylinder and its base, and the heat capacity of the contents becomes more important than the properties of the container.

This is what the long handled flat lids look like, by the way, if you haven't seen them (these are pretty pricey)--

http://www.frenchcopperstudio.com/longhandles.html

The only one I have is a Mauviel, and it looks pretty much like these. There is also a small manufacturer of copperware in Brooklyn that makes this style of lid. The handles are weighted toward the center of the lid so they fit nicely, and they work well with long handled pans and saucepans. For pots with short loop handles, lids that have more conventional handles in the center are more convenient.

[Peter the eater]

Definitely not brass for the handles ... to conductive.

I don't know about people who actually cook for a living, but for every hour I work with a copper pot in my home, I spend ten looking at it hanging from the ceiling.

Brass and copper are beautiful together. I know it's superficial but when it comes to handles, I'll take appearance over heat transfer coefficient.

[nickrey]

What a great range of lids. But why use them at all? To my mind the purpose of a lid is to seal the rim. It doesn't actually touch the food so having a conductive lid seems expensive overkill. Perhaps if the shape were part of the cooking process, as in a Tagine, it may make sense.

I use porcelain plates as lids on my Mauviel saucepan when I require them.

[slkinsey]

Definitely not brass for the handles ... to conductive.

I don't know about people who actually cook for a living, but for every hour I work with a copper pot in my home, I spend ten looking at it hanging from the ceiling.

Brass and copper are beautiful together. I know it's superficial but when it comes to handles, I'll take appearance over heat transfer coefficient.

Also not heavy enough, IMO, to balance the pan properly. I am not aware of any "long handle" (as opposed to loop handle) copper pans at the full heavy gauge that have a brass handle. And you won't find brass handles approaching the thickness of the traditional iron handles. Brass handles are usually found on 1.6mm gauge copper pans intended for table service and not for cooking (except perhaps for the occasional flambé-type finish tableside). Personally, I think the iron handles look pretty good anyway.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have a couple of universal lids for pans and pots that don't have their own lids or when I need more lids of a certain size than I have. One is stainless with the handle in the center, kind of like this one, which works fine on stockpots and stew pots, but on long-handled pans, the handle interferes with the lid. The other one is a Cuisinart vented universal lid that I think is discontinued, and the handle is off center and there's a cutout for the pan handle so that it can fit on long-handled pans.

There's no particular reason for having copper lids, other than that they match visually and can become part of the presentation, but if you want to cool a pot in an ice bath but leave it covered, the copper lid will draw off some more heat.

[slkinsey]

There's no particular reason for having copper lids, other than that they match visually and can become part of the presentation, but if you want to cool a pot in an ice bath but leave it covered, the copper lid will draw off some more heat.

Er... not really. Not unless the pot is submerged. And in contact with the internal contents.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Put a room-temperature copper lid onto a hot copper pot and the lid gets hot pretty quickly and becomes another surface to radiate heat (into the air, not the ice bath in this case), just like any kind of heat sink attached to something hot.

Edited May 19, 2010 by David A. Goldfarb (log)

[slkinsey]

That effect has got to be pretty negligible. Taking the lid off would accelerate cooling by orders of magnitude compared to using a copper lid. The function of a lid, after all, is to keep heat in -- not let it out.

Edited May 19, 2010 by slkinsey (log)

[ScoopKW]

You have my attention, Dakki.

I would like to get my hands on thick copper pans -- 3.0mm or more. With handles that balance the weight of the pan. A heavy pan isn't so heavy when properly balanced.

I'd like the handles to be attached in such a way that the area where the handle meets the copper is easy to clean -- try to clean an All-Clad Cop-R-Chef fry pan and you'll know why this is important.

I would mostly be interested in saute pans -- 8, 10 and 12 inch. Nice, gentle curve at the sides to allow me to flip and shake my food. If I didn't already have copper cookware, two sizes of sauce pan, and a 10" fry pan as well.

As long as the lining is non-reactive and won't melt like tin, I'm happy. I'm happy with stainless. But if you've got some tungsten alloy that does the job, I'm good with that, too.

As for the lid, it merely has to be tight fitting as far as I'm concerned. I dislike cleaning copper lids. Personally, I think it would be neat to have pyrex lids. Any time I lid up, it's usually because the pan is going in an oven. It would be cool to be able to see the food through the lid as it braises.

What I'd mostly like to see is your idea of pricing. Do you think you'd be able to come in under the current manufacturers?

[David A. Goldfarb]

That effect has got to be pretty negligible. Taking the lid off would accelerate cooling by orders of magnitude compared to using a copper lid. The function of a lid, after all, is to keep heat in -- not let it out.

You would think, but I'm not so sure. When a pot is on the fire, leaving the lid on causes the steam to recirculate instead of dissipating into the air, and that keeps heat in. When the pot is cooling, there isn't so much steam being generated, at least once it's below boiling. It's probably not a big effect, but it would be interesting to measure, if I could find a convenient way to test it. In any case, if I leave the lid on when cooling, it's usually because I don't want stuff falling into the pot, so the heat retention/cooling effects are secondary concerns.

Another attraction of the copper stock pot is it does cool faster than a less conductive pot in an ice bath.

Edited May 19, 2010 by David A. Goldfarb (log)