Copper cookware: Bourgeat or Falk

[slkinsey]

With respect, there *is* a pretty easy way to assess thickness without a caliper of micrometer: The change you carry around in your pocket. A dime? Run away. A Penny? Maybe for table service. A nickel? Get excited.

With respect, this seems like hogwash. Even assuming that one can accurately compare the thickness of a coin to the thickness of a piece of cookware, a nickel is only 1.95 mm thick. The thickest American coin is the half-dollar at 2.15 mm. There is no American coin that can be profitably compared to 2.5 mm cookware.

[Shalmanese]

With respect, there *is* a pretty easy way to assess thickness without a caliper of micrometer: The change you carry around in your pocket. A dime? Run away. A Penny? Maybe for table service. A nickel? Get excited.

With respect, this seems like hogwash. Even assuming that one can accurately compare the thickness of a coin to the thickness of a piece of cookware, a nickel is only 1.95 mm thick. The thickest American coin is the half-dollar at 2.15 mm. There is no American coin that can be profitably compared to 2.5 mm cookware.

An Australian 20 cent coin is exactly 2.5 mm thick, so is the British 2 pound coin. Alternately, 2 dimes are 2.7 mm thick so if it's noticeably thicker than a nickel and just a bit thinner than 2 dimes, it's 2.5 mm.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Shalmanese (log)

[slkinsey]

The question is whether using a reference coin actually makes it possible to tell whether it's 2.0 mm or 2.5 mm.

[David A. Goldfarb]

For some uses like skillets, 2.0mm isn't so bad for the reason mentioned above--heat distribution is still fairly even for the kind of use a skillet should get, where you're moving the food most of the time, but it's light enough to handle with one hand. Ranhofer mentions in The Epicurean that it is desirable for a frypan to be a bit lighter than other kinds of copper cooking vessels. 1.5mm would be considered "tableware," but it's not as if you can't cook in it--it's just that for the cost of copper, you're not getting the even heat distribution that makes the heavier copperware interesting.

As it happens, I grew up with the lightweight stuff in my family, so I have a couple of similar sized pieces in both heavy and light versions. Just to give an idea of what the weight difference is, a 7" saucepan that looks to be 1.5mm copper made by the Chilean company Cobre that my father bought in the 1980s, with a brass handle and rolled lip, weighs 1lb 14oz. A 7" tin-lined Mauviel saucepan with a cast iron handle, straight lip, and hammered finish, that is probably 3mm, weighs 5lb 3-3/8 oz. If you want to make a creme anglaise without a double boiler, this is the thing.

Anything that has a fully rolled lip except for the large jam pans is lightweight copper. Pieces with a curved lip, not fully rolled onto itself, are usually 2.0 or 2.5mm. More than 2.5mm tends to have a straight lip.

Edited November 13, 2011 by David A. Goldfarb (log)

[Shalmanese]

The question is whether using a reference coin actually makes it possible to tell whether it's 2.0 mm or 2.5 mm.

It seems so. Here's a photo of a US Nickel (1.95mm) side by side with a Australian 20 cent piece (2.50mm):

The 20 cent piece feels noticeably thicker and it's quite easy to distinguish by feel alone. If I only had a US nickel, I'm pretty sure it would be trivial to determine whether a piece of metal was 0.05mm thicker or 0.55mm thicker.

Alternately, standard 20lb printer paper has a thickness of about 0.1mm so you can make a stack of 20 sheets and another stack of 25 sheets and use that as comparison.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Shalmanese (log)

[nickrey]

I've got two 2mm Mauviel saucepans and one frypan of the same thickness and find them perfectly suited to my needs. They are light and highly conductive of heat, which is the main advantage of using this type of cookware.

If I want to cook something using a different approach that requires thick cookware, I'll use my Staub cast iron.

[paulraphael]

I've got two 2mm Mauviel saucepans and one frypan of the same thickness and find them perfectly suited to my needs. They are light and highly conductive of heat, which is the main advantage of using this type of cookware.

If I want to cook something using a different approach that requires thick cookware, I'll use my Staub cast iron.

Cast iron and heavy copper have radically different cooking properties. You would never want an enamelled cast iron sauté pan or saucepan, for instance. The near total lack of responsiveness and poor heat distribution would make them the worst choices possible.

2mm copper works ok for some things. It just won't have the evenness of heat distribution nor the heat retention of 2.5mm copper, and the gains in responsiveness from being thinner will in most cases not offset the disadvantages. Every material has an ideal thickness (in terms of heat distribution) based on a formula that considers density and thermal conductivity. The 2.5mm standard is closer to copper's ideal thickness than the 2.0mm standard.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think 2.0mm is the sweet spot for a fry pan, where you're keeping a close watch on it the whole time.

The stockpot in my avatar (12 qt) is 2.0mm, and it's fine for that, but I have a larger 18 qt copper stockpot, and it's thicker, around 3.5mm, because at that size it needs to be sturdier. They do keep a nice even low simmer, and if you put the pot in a sink full of ice water, they cool a bit faster.

2.5mm and heavier lets you do things like caramelize onions and walk away from the pan for 5 or 10 minutes, and come back and find everything moving along just fine, nothing burning, presuming you've set the heat properly. That goes for stainless with a 2.5mm copper disk bottom, like the Sitram Catering line, but you've got to be careful not to set the flame larger than the disk, or you can get burning around the sides.

[boilsover]

Hi, Tim:

I think you need a new micrometer. A US Nickel is 5 hundredths of a mm under 2mm, or 1.95mm. If you could find a Half Dollar, that would be better (2.15mm). My point remains: for a quick test, if the wall gauge is thicker than a nickel, it's OK to get excited. Two pennies thick? Call your banker.

[boilsover]

Hi, Sam:

Umm, if you have two pennies to rub together, that makes 3.1mm, about the thickness of the older Dehillerin and Gaillard sautes. And if you're a tightwad like me in not tipping the barrista, you also have two dimes (2.7mm) with which to compare. Pan about a nickel-thick? 2mm. Closer to 2 dimes? 2.5mm

And unless the pan's rim is flared and finish-ground on a bias, i.e., if it is squared off, it's very easy to compare the pan with a coin.

You take care.

Edited November 18, 2011 by boilsover (log)

[boilsover]

Hi, paulraphael: "The 2.5mm standard is closer to copper's ideal thickness than the 2.0mm standard."

Yes, you're right, at least as formulae go. The actual "ideal" thickness for copper is 2.87mm. And that theoretical value is the basis for Falk-Culinaire's semi-snobby pronouncement that if thicker gauge made a difference, they'd use it. Nevermind that the F-C thicker bimetal is 2.3mm of copper and 0.2mm of stainless, or that (as Sam I think correctly surmises) the total 2.5mm thickness is about as thick as they can fuse together--or stamp (The thicker vintage pieces, at least after about 1880, were turned on lathes and chucks).

However, IMHO, there are applications where copperware 3mm and > is better, the theory notwithstanding. The exceptions have less to do with copper's conductivity, and more to do with its specific heat. That is, when pan thickness is equal, copper stores about the same heat as cast iron. So in applications where you would want good responsiveness (up and down), good evenness, AND good heat retention, mondo-thick copper can be just the ticket. Many cooks don't appreciate this because it's not production made anymore, and therefore there are few opportunities to actually cook in/on it.

FWIW

Edited November 18, 2011 by boilsover (log)

[paulraphael]

However, IMHO, there are applications where copperware 3mm and > is better, the theory notwithstanding.

No doubt. But unfortunately it's not an option because no one makes it in that thickness (there's some thick tinned copper out there, but it's not suited for the kinds of cooking where you benefit from thermal mass, because tin melts at such low temperatures).

Also, there's very little cooking I can think of that requires huge thermal mass AND the responsiveness of copper. I like big mass for searing big chunks of things. A giant cast iron skillet does that just fine. For making hollandaise family sauces or reducing cream or anthing else where evenness and responsiveness are helpful in equal parts, I've never found anything as good as 2.5mm copper. Not to suggest for a minute that it's necessary. It just makes things a little easier, a little more fun.

[slkinsey]

For some uses like skillets, 2.0mm isn't so bad for the reason mentioned above--heat distribution is still fairly even for the kind of use a skillet should get, where you're moving the food most of the time, but it's light enough to handle with one hand.

I wouldn't dispute that there are occasions where the advantages of 2.5 mm copper/stainless bimetal aren't needed. But I would assert that, if one is going to make the compromise of going down from a 2.5 mm to a 2.0 mm frypan on the premise that you're "moving the food most of the time, [and] it's light enough to handle with one hand," why not just use carbon steel for a fraction of the price (not to mention a fraction of the maintenance hassle)?

Everyone makes their own economic determinations, of course. Personally I wouldn't be interested in the maintenance hassle of copper at anything less than full thickness. The admonition I give to those who might like to purchase copper cookware at garage sales and thrift stores, etc. is simply to make sure they know what they're getting. If you're happy with 2.0 mm, then that's great. But if what you want is 2.5 mm, don't think it's so easy to tell what you're getting.

Umm, if you have two pennies to rub together, that makes 3.1mm, about the thickness of the older Dehillerin and Gaillard sautes. And if you're a tightwad like me in not tipping the barrista, you also have two dimes (2.7mm) with which to compare. Pan about a nickel-thick? 2mm. Closer to 2 dimes? 2.5mm

And unless the pan's rim is flared and finish-ground on a bias, i.e., if it is squared off, it's very easy to compare the pan with a coin.

Most rims nowadays are, however, flared and/or finish-ground on a bias. To the best of my knowledge, only Mauviel (and only certain lines of Mauviel) have rims that are straight and squared off. As you acknowledge, it's nontrivial to compare the thickness of a coin (or anything else, for that matter) to the thickness of a flared/bias-finished rim.

[boilsover]

"Most rims nowadays are, however, flared and/or finish-ground on a bias. To the best of my knowledge, only Mauviel (and only certain lines of Mauviel) have rims that are straight and squared off. As you acknowledge, it's nontrivial to compare the thickness of a coin (or anything else, for that matter) to the thickness of a flared/bias-finished rim."

Hi, Sam:

Careful with the ampersand and overstatement. IMO, most copperware's rims aren't flared AND ground on a bias, i.e., parallel to the bottom. Falk's aren't, and I don't believe Matfer-Bourgeat's are, either. As for makers of straight-wall pans, you can add to Mauviel (the vast majority of whose copperware is straight and squared) the houses of Ruffoni, Baumalu, Paderno World Cuisine, Mazzetti, Spring (some models, including saucepans), deBuyer (Prima Matera line) and a host of other smaller makers worldwide.

I have no sales statistics to back this up, but my opinion is that there are probably fewer flared+bias-finished copper pans sold worldwide than straightwall/squared.

Finally, someone (preferably nearsighted) with a Falk, a micrometer and a machinist's rule should measure their pan's wall and its edge, so that we may know whether and how much "thicker" the edge appears. Then 'coin triviality' may be restored.

Edited November 21, 2011 by boilsover (log)

[andiesenji]

My SS lined Bourgeat copper is not "bias ground" on the edges. The edges are rolled or flared.

On the left is a 5 1/4-Quart Brazier, on the right is a 3 1/2 quart saucepan.

I bought the brazier in the 1990s and the saucepan in 2006.

I don't have a micrometer but the edges are fractionally more than 1/8 inch thick measured with my glass ruler and both are very heavy.

Bourgeat states that the WALLS are 1/8 inch thick and the bottoms are thicker.

I have a Falk frypan and a Bourgeat frypan, both 11 inches in diameter. The Falk weighs 5 lb,11.2oz the Bourgeat weighs 6 lb,1.4oz.

[slkinsey]

Falk Culinair makes the copper/stainless bimetal used by Bourgeat (not to mention Mauviel, etc.). So we know for sure that the Bourgeat stuff is 2.5 mm thick. We also know this because their literature now describes it as being 2.5 mm thick. "1/8 inch" was just the most convenient approximation of 2.5 mm into Imperial/US Customary units, since we are used to subdividing the inch by successive halving (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16). A more accurate approximation would be to call it 1/10 of an inch. But that would seem smaller than it actually is to most people.

The fact that the flared edges measured "fractionally more than 1/8 inch thick" despite the fact that we know these pans are 2.5 mm thick (i.e., smaller than 1/8 inch thick) shows how much distortion is produced at the edge when it is pressed into this shape. If the Bourgeat piece were truly 1/8 inch (3.2 mm!) thick, we would expect a far greater difference in weight between the two frypans than the 6.2 ounce difference you recorded -- which most likely due to the fact that the Bourgeat pan is 1/4 inch taller than the Falk pan.

[boilsover]

Hi, andie...

You and Sam are both right, in a sense. Your 2.5mm Bourgeat appears approximately 3.1mm thick at the rim because when the very edge was sheared off, the shear fell vertically but at a point in the flare's radius before it reached horzontal. This whole process can be seen in the short video available at Falk's website.

And you two both being right, now we're back to the point where a coin test makes sense (again). If your flared-rim Falk or Bourgeat appears two pennies "thick" (3.1mm) at the rim, you know the sheetstock from which it was formed is 2.5 mm. Applying the same ratio (1.24), a 2mm pan would appear 2.5mm thick, which is just a little thinner than two dimes (2.7mm). And just so we don't have to do this again, a 1.5mm wall will appear 1.86mm thick, ceteris paribus, which is about as thick as a Quarter (1.76mm).

I confirmed with the Falk distributor, Michael, that all the bimetal sheetstock is in one of three thicknesses: 1.5mm, 2.0mm, and 2.5mm.

Hope this helps.

Edited November 21, 2011 by boilsover (log)

[slkinsey]

Well, yes, it's possible to do if one has the knowledge to know that for curved lip stainless-lined copper cookware by such-and-such makers a 2.5 mm thickness is best approximated by being a touch thinner than two pennies, but 2.5 mm straight lip stainless-lined copper cookware by such-and-such other makers is better approximated by being a touch thinner than two dimes, except that 2.0 mm curved lip stainless-lined copper cookware by such-and-such other makers is also best approximated by two dimes, and by the way some manufacturers make both curved lip and straight lip cookware and some manufacturers make cookware at 2.5 mm and 2.0 mm -- all assuming, of course, that the different shapes of flared rims produced for the different brands have the same amount of distortion at the edge.

The point I'm making is that it's more complicated to figure out what you're getting than walking around with a pocket full of coins. If it's me and I like to make a practice of walking around garage sales and thrift stores looking for inexpensive copper cookware, I'm investing the 10 bucks in pocket calipers rather than relying upon the change in my pocket.

Edited November 21, 2011 by slkinsey (log)

[David A. Goldfarb]

For some uses like skillets, 2.0mm isn't so bad for the reason mentioned above--heat distribution is still fairly even for the kind of use a skillet should get, where you're moving the food most of the time, but it's light enough to handle with one hand.

I wouldn't dispute that there are occasions where the advantages of 2.5 mm copper/stainless bimetal aren't needed. But I would assert that, if one is going to make the compromise of going down from a 2.5 mm to a 2.0 mm frypan on the premise that you're "moving the food most of the time, [and] it's light enough to handle with one hand," why not just use carbon steel for a fraction of the price (not to mention a fraction of the maintenance hassle)?

Copper is still more responsive and distributes the heat more evenly than carbon steel at 2.0mm, and 2.0mm is still pretty substantial for a frypan. I have those older 1.5mm frypans as well, and there's no comparison. I also have 10" and 12" 2.5mm tin-lined saute pans (the 12" may actually be nickel, which was a higher grade option than tin before stainless). When I'm cooking a lot and am in better shape, I can handle the 10" with one hand. The 12" is a two-handed affair at around 13 lbs. empty, and then better to move the food with a wooden spoon.

The reason I have the 2.0mm copper frypan is also because it was the only one Mauviel made with a Teflon surface, and I figured, if I'm going to have one Teflon pan that I only planned to use for things that merited it, like eggs and delicate fish, why compromise? It's held up for over 10 years now, so I'd say it's been a good investment, and when it becomes necessary, I'll have it recoated. Had the Teflon been an option in a 2.5mm pan, I'd probably have gotten the heavier one, but in retrospect, I'm not so sure it would have been necessary.

[boilsover]

Hi, Sam:

"The point I'm making is that it's more complicated to figure out what you're getting than walking around with a pocket full of coins."

Yes, you are making that point. But no, it's not all that complicated. Flared rim = may be 25% thinner than the edge appears. Straightwall = what you see is what you get. Either way, two pennies or two dimes = you're not wasting your money--and any remaining disputations occur somewhere between the 98th and 99th percentiles of cookware. But hey, I don't consider 4 coins a pocketful, either, so we may disagree.

You take care.

[boilsover]

Hi, David:

PTFE-coated copper that lives for TEN years? If it wasn't you saying so, I'd doubt it. But if you say so, it must be true. Can I still buy one somewhere?

Concerning responsiveness, perhaps you've seen this video, but Falk has a lab setup where they take about 6" ribbons of metals to compare with copper. They put a Bunsen burner at one end, and a thermocouple at the other, and compare the times to reach "even" heat. I defy anyone who watches the steel vid to stay awake through to the end.

I think you are spot-on about 2mm copper being very, very good, at least in comparison to anything other than thicker copper or silver. Frankly, in debates over 2mm vs. 2.5mm, the marginal returns are relatively small when the dreck that is 90% of cladware is running in the race. 'Win' and 'place' are pretty much foregone conclusions; 'show' is what's left for clad to struggle to claim. >4mm aluminum is the dark horse, and when that's considered, clad is reduced to Miss Congeniality-- awarded strictly on the basis of convenience.

Cheers, I enjoy your posts, and always learn something from you. Thanks.

Edited November 22, 2011 by boilsover (log)

[David A. Goldfarb]

Mauviel made two frypans with hardened teflon coatings as part of their "Cuprinox Style" line. There may still be a few of them out there, but they aren't making them anymore. I'm careful not to overheat it, and not to touch it with any metal utensil, and since my wife doesn't cook particularly, I'm the only one who has ever used it in all that time.

[budrichard]

In regards to the 2.5mm thickness as being ideal for copper:

Any material between the heat source and the contents of a pan is subject to a temperature drop across the materials of the pan. This temperature drop is linear and is dependent on the heat conducting property of the material. The thicker the material the greater the temperature drop. Using limits as indicators of what occurs, minimal thickness or no thickness, you will be cooking with the temperature of the heat source, if the material was of infinite thickness, the temperature of the contents would not increase.

I suspect 2.5mm copper was developed over time by trail and error as ideal and tin was used because that was the only way to coat and before metal forming allowed copper/stainless sandwiches to be manufactured. Teflon coating will actually increase the temperature drop of a pan and was really developed because aluminum pans that are not coated or SS lined stick.

Tinned copper pans need to be relined at some time if used frequently, SS will last as an interior lining. I suspect that the expertise required to reline tin pans will or has been just about lost. I also don't know of anyone relining Teflon coated pans?-Dick

[David A. Goldfarb]

Tinning is a pretty low-tech process and is used for many things other than copperware. Basically, the pan is cleaned, a substance called "whiting" is applied to the outside to prevent tin from adhering to the outer surface of the pan, the pan is heated, acid flux applied, and tin is wiped around the pan directly from an ingot. When the pan cools, the whiting is cleaned off, it is detarnished and polished.

Teflon recoating is a service mainly offered on the industrial scale. It doesn't make sense to have a cheap Teflon pan recoated (I suspect most of the labor for this is in removing the old coating and preparing the surface), but if you're a bread factory with a few thousand loaf pans, it can make sense, or at least this seems their target market along with coating of new parts for various purposes. When I've looked into it, some of the companies that offer industrial recoating have set up side operations to offer this service to small scale consumers, though more recently, I don't know if any of these companies are advertising this service. On the other hand, for a $200 pan, it's worth it to me to do some research when the time comes and to see what is possible. If teflon recoating isn't possible, then there may be a stainless surface underneath the teflon that can be refinished, or perhaps it is a copper surface that can be tinned.

[andiesenji]

In the late '40s, after restrictions on "strategic metals" were lifted, and indeed into the 1970s, one could buy home kits for re-tinning copper cookware.

I did this a few times and still have one of the pans with my amateurish results, done when I was living in my old house and had the Garland range with it's high output burners as it was somewhat difficult to get the tin to melt on a regular kitchen range. (The surface of the pan had to get to at least 450° F. and hold that temp for long enough to swirl the tin around and up the sides.)

From time to time these kits show up on eBay.

There are more companies doing re-tinning now than there were twelve years ago, the last time I shipped a couple of my pots off to a place in New Jersey (that kept them for 4 months) to have this done. It is costly so made sense to replace my most used pieces with the stainless lined.

The internet has made these places much more accessible. I had never heard of Rocky Mountain Retinning in Denver until about three or four years ago when I saw it mentioned on a gardenweb forum.

In the past I used a metalcraft place in Los Angeles but they had so much business that it could take up to a year for them to get around to working on my pans. They closed in the mid-90s.

Photos of a little pan that show my unprofessional attempts at retinning. Bubbles, uneven ripples, thicker in some areas and thin in others.

This is a little sauce pan I use only for melting butter so it has held up better than the others.

A closeup of a "blistered" area that i smoothed out a bit with steel wool.

Edited November 22, 2011 by andiesenji (log)