Finex Cast Iron Skillet

[Dakki]

Here's a question: What would you lot be willing to pay for a pan shaped in your favorite "classic" Griswold shape, with a smooth cooking surface?

[Martin Fisher]

Here's a question: What would you lot be willing to pay for a pan shaped in your favorite "classic" Griswold shape, with a smooth cooking surface?

Depends on the pan, in the case of a Griswold 9" No. 43 Chef Skillet clone mentioned above.....

If it's well done, fine-grained iron with a smooth finish and properly pre-seasoned with a drying oil such as flax....I think that $75 is a fair retail price.

[Shel_B]

Check out http://www.panman.com/ for Griswdld, Wagner, and other cast iron products. What I saw seemed to be reasonably priced and in excellent condition.

[dcarch]

Pre-seasoning cast iron cookware is not for your benefit. They do that to prevent rusting.

Rough surface helps non-stick-ness. The food is lifted off some of the cooking surface, and the seasoning in the depressed areas will not get scraped off as easily. You see many Teflon cookware have rough surfaces.

dcarch

[Martin Fisher]

I can't agree that a rough surface helps with non-stickness...not it my experience anyway.

Roughness can give the food something to cling to.....I'll take smooth over rough any day.

If seasoning is scraping off, the pan isn't properly seasoned and cared for.

[MellaMella]

 

Or a trip to the metal shop with a lodge to get them to sand down the inside...

All right, I never thought of that. But I am loving this Finex. Was a Kickstarter supporter, so paid about half the going rate. I'll look into sanding an existing pan next time life is quiet enough.

[paulraphael]

This looks like a half dozen solutions in search of problems. I don't find any appreciable difference between my rough-bottomed and smooth-bottomed skillets. I don't ever want to have to deal with cleaning that spring thing on the handle. Hot pan handles should never be an issue anyway. There's no such thing as a cool handle if you've got lots of burners going or heat pouring out the front of the oven, so I've got a side towel on every handle no matter what. And the utility of the octagon shape confounds my imagination. There aren't so many things in the world that got good enough to leave alone a hundred years ago, but I think the humble skillet is one of them.

[Martin Fisher]

The Field Skillet: Lighter, Smoother Cast Iron

 

Nice idea but the price point is too high, IMHO.

 

[MSRadell]

On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 10:29 AM, DiggingDogFarm said:

The Field Skillet: Lighter, Smoother Cast Iron

 

Nice idea but the price point is too high, IMHO.

 

It's an awful high price point and I really don't see the advantage to it over a conventional cast-iron pan. It's not that much lighter and I'm not really sure that the smooth surface would be beneficial, it actually may be harmful to the effects we desire from cast-iron.

[Lisa Shock]

36 minutes ago, MSRadell said:

It's an awful high price point and I really don't see the advantage to it over a conventional cast-iron pan. It's not that much lighter and I'm not really sure that the smooth surface would be beneficial, it actually may be harmful to the effects we desire from cast-iron.

 I think it's great. I wouldn't mind paying the price, especially knowing that this pan will be making meals for people 100+ years into the future.

 

I have several pieces of Wagner Ware and Griswold, and their smooth surface really does make them more nonstick. I got all of mine from thrift shops, and each had some sort of rust issue that I had to fix and then reseason the pans. I also have a couple of Lodge pieces, and the performance just isn't there. I mean, I use my Lodge dutch oven to make beans and the 10" skillet for a lot of things. But, I use one of two different sized Wagner skillets if I want to make a fritatta.

 

Honestly, I am always fussing over the seasoning on the Lodge pans, the Wagner and Griswold pans just get rinsed, warmed on the stove and put away. They just remain shiny and non stick. And, one of them is a much newer acquisition (with my reseasoning) than my Lodge skillet.

[dscheidt]

2 hours ago, MSRadell said:

It's an awful high price point and I really don't see the advantage to it over a conventional cast-iron pan. It's not that much lighter and I'm not really sure that the smooth surface would be beneficial, it actually may be harmful to the effects we desire from cast-iron.

It does make a big difference.  I've got a brandless[1] 130+ year old skillet. It's very smooth, and it sticks much less than modern rough cast stuff.  I have a modern lodge skillet, which I suffered with for years, before sanding (~400 grit) the bottom smooth.   It works much better now, when I bother to use it. 

 

Oh, despite the marketing bullcrap on the field skillet kickstarter page, it seasoned just fine after being sanded. 

 

 

[1] I originally wrote "nameless", but that's not right, it's got a name, named after its original owner who died in 1890.

 

[gfweb]

The whole cast iron thing I don't quite get. I've got a few and other than a dutch oven in the fireplace I don't have much need for them.

 

Adherents say it has "great heat retention"...which means bad heat transfer and difficult to control pan temp.

 

One can learn to love CI and make great food in it, but CI doesn't solve any problems I have.

 

Having said that, my smooth CI is more nonstick and better seasoned than the rough CI.

[Martin Fisher]

9 hours ago, dscheidt said:

It's very smooth, and it sticks much less than modern rough cast stuff.

 

7 hours ago, gfweb said:

my smooth CI is more nonstick and better seasoned than the rough CI.

 

11 hours ago, Lisa Shock said:

their smooth surface really does make them more nonstick.

 

Yes! I agree! 

[Thanks for the Crepes]

On 3/28/2016 at 11:57 PM, gfweb said:

The whole cast iron thing I don't quite get. I've got a few and other than a dutch oven in the fireplace I don't have much need for them.

 

Adherents say it has "great heat retention"...which means bad heat transfer and difficult to control pan temp.

 

One can learn to love CI and make great food in it, but CI doesn't solve any problems I have.

 

Having said that, my smooth CI is more nonstick and better seasoned than the rough CI.

 

I'm lucky enough to have a Wagner Ware 10-1/2" cast iron skillet. It has a smooth well-seasoned finish, and never a problem with anything sticking to it. I use it for cooking fresh ground med rare hamburgers inside in bad weather. I just don't like to waste expensive good steaks by cooking them indoors, although I've done it in the Wagner when my plans got rained out. I know I'm committing GRITS sacrilege, but I prefer my cornbread cooked in a heavy WearEver  cake pan.

 

Combined with my 70's super scorcher electric stove, even good cast iron seems to not be a good fit for me and my way of cooking. It's just too easy to burn stuff, and even if you remove it to a heat sink like the stainless steel kitchen sink or the thick enameled steel burner covers I have for the stove, there is just no heat control. It's heavy too, which used to not be an issue, but is becoming one more every day. CI might make fine Dutch ovens, but I've got a Club aluminum one that doesn't make me want to investigate further. Now if I cooked in campfires more often, the Wagner might well get more use.

[andiesenji]

I have a #12 unmarked Wagner from the 1950s that has an inner surface that feels like glass.  For decades this was my "fish pan" because I could fry any type of fish and it never stuck. 

I no longer use it so put it on ebay but I have several others, smaller and easier for me to handle.

 

The thing is that these "modern" iterations of the antique cast iron skillets and those made up until the late '50s, are more expensive but not any more efficient or desirable.

 

I was given one of the "Lodge Logic" pans to try and it was not nearly as non-stick as my 100 year old cornbread pan (Griswold).  I gave it back to the person who wanted me to try it.  Also heavier than my old Griswold.

 

I can drop an egg in my "egg pan" tilt the skillet and have it slide all over the bottom with only a hint of grease (bacon drippings are my choice for eggs).  Today I made gashouse egg (egg in a hole cut out of a slice of bread) and that too slid around the pan.  

 

I guess for me, in this instance, there is a bit too much "hype" in this presentation.  I've been using CI pans for 50+ years and I have yet to see one of the new ones that is better than the ones I inherited.

I have sold several during the past year and buyers have written to me from as far away as New Zealand on how perfect these are for certain foods.  I'm keeping the smaller ones as I can still handle them.  

[AlaMoi]

my touch-it-and-I-kill-you cast iron is a Griswold slant logo - the logo puts it pre-1920.

paid $12 for it at a flea market.  it weighs about the same as a similar size 3 mm copper fry pan.

I do my over easy eggs with a smidgen of butter and a one handed flip.

 

there is so much BS floating around about cast iron -

 

it is slow to heat up (and slow to cool down - that's the "holds heat" thing)

the theory it heats unevenly is true - but is only significant for the iPhone thumbs generation who can only cook using instant water.

if one is that preheat thoroughly challenged, use the microwave.

 

the ability to hold heat is a function of mass i.e. weight.  period. 

for those who want a cast iron pan as light as their aluminum - there is no benefit there. 

pound for pound, aluminum holds heat way better than cast iron.

 

"it is unresponsive" - yeah, like no kidding - has u thought about that?

if you're doing southern fried chicken, exactly what response 2 what change does u want?

 

copper - heats/cools faster than everything but pure silver.

doesn't hold heat worth a hoot.

that's a pretty brass tacks definition of "responsive"

 

different materials for cooking purposes have different advantages / disadvantages.

marketeers ignore that; fanatics-of-today's-flavor deny it.

 

but it is still true - and the cook who knows what pan material is:

- best

- most suited

- easiest to use

for Task X - wins.

 

[andiesenji]

AlaMoi, my sentiments exactly.  I like the heat retention of cast iron because after all these decades of using it, I know how long the "carry over" is and I use that.  

When I prepare my "famous" scrambled eggs, I turn off the burner and allow the residual heat to finish the cooking and they turn out perfect every time.  And it also works with delicate fish.  

And with other things that can go bad rapidly if left with too much heat too long but need a gentle warmth, not an abrupt switch to cold for the desirable texture.

[MArkF]

I am a bit confused about the comments about rough surface on lodge cast iron. I have both new (rough) and old (smooth) and see no difference at all in cleaning, seasoning, or cooking between new and old.

Griswold remains arguable the best, but due to the increasing popularity of cast iron they are increasingly hard to find. 

 

For me, I like lodge and have used it for 40 plus years. I have no issue with the low prices. Its cast iron after all.

 

Mark