• Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create an account.

Robenco15

Small Saucepan Size

40 posts in this topic

Hey Guys,

What would you recommend as a useful/practical small saucepan size. I have a 2 qt saucepan and have only thought of getting larger saucepans (3.75qt, 6qt, possibly a 3.2qt saucier), but recently I'm fiding myself straining sauce and such into a smaller saucepan I have, just not a very good one.

At first I was looking at .8 and .9 quart saucepans/saucier, but since I can only look at pictures online that aren't helpful, I'm not sure if that is a practical size. I want something bigger than something for melting butter. Would a 1.2 quart saucepan be a good size? The all clad 1.5 quart isn't terrible, but I'm thinking the 1.2qt might be the right size I'm looking for.

Does anyone have experience using a smaller saucepan like a 1.2qt? What do you use it for? Find it useful/practical?

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one or 2 sauce pans smaller than 2 qt that I have owned over the last 35 years were not useful to me and are gone. I would opt for an additional 2 qt.

1 person likes this

Porthos Potwatcher
The Unrelenting Carnivore
"If every pork chop was perfect, we wouldn't have hot dogs." (source unknown)
Customer to clerk in a clothing store, "Do you have these in a size for people who actually eat?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 3 or 4 one-quart saucepans and find them very useful. One is an old All-Clad MC "saucier."

Very useful when cooking for 2 - 4 people, and I often make hot oatmeal for 1 in the classic 1-quart saucepan with lid.

Saucepans.JPG

Saucier, Windsor, Classic

3 people like this

Mitch Weinstein aka "weinoo"

mweinstein@eGstaff.org

Tasty Travails - My Blog

My eGullet FoodBog - A Tale of Two Boroughs

Was it you baby...or just a Brilliant Disguise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really depends on what and how much you're cooking as well as how you like to prepare things.
There's only two of us here. I find a small saucepan useful because an immersion blender works efficiently with it.

1 person likes this

~Martin

Unsupervised rebellious radical agrarian experimenter, minimalist penny-pincher, self-reliant homesteader and adventurous cook. Crotchety cantankerous terse curmudgeon, nonconformist and contrarian who questions everything!

The best thing about a vegetable garden is all the meat you can hunt and trap out of it! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Porthos, thank you for your opinion and help! Weinoo thank you for your opinion and pictures!!! and DiggingDogFarm thanks for your advice as right now it is only myself and one other. I try to cook a lot and that is a great point about an immersion blender!

I think I may be between three pans. One is a saucepan and one is a saucier.

Either a .8qt that is 4.7 inches in diameter or 1.2 qt Matfer Bourgeat Saucepan that is 5.5 inches in diameter. I feel that the .8 may be too small.

http://www.previninc.com/shop/Matfer-Bourgeat-Copper-Saucepans.html#554

The other one is the Falk Culinair .9 quart saucier that is 6.3 inches in diameter (much like that Mauviel windsor above).

http://www.falkusa.com/16cm-falk-signature-line-copper-saucier

Do any of you feel the need for a lid for the a saucepan this small? Do you use a lid a lot for it? That is additional cost in both cases.

Weinoo, how do you like that windsor or saucier versus the saucpan? Is .9 quarts too small or just right? I feel that 1.2qt may be too big for the additional expense since I have a 2qt already. Do you find yourself always wishing the .9 was a little bigger? Falk has a 1.37qt saucier. I very much prefer the saucier shape to the windsor shape.

Thank you so much for your help and guidance!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weinoo, how do you like that windsor or saucier versus the saucpan? Is .9 quarts too small or just right? I feel that 1.2qt may be too big for the additional expense since I have a 2qt already. Do you find yourself always wishing the .9 was a little bigger? Falk has a 1.37qt saucier. I very much prefer the saucier shape to the windsor shape.

I think at this point it is just personal preference...I don't wish the .9s were any larger. I think the copper Windsor is probably a little bigger than a quart (it is, I just measured it), but for practical purposes you really can't fill it to the brim anyway.

I might just go for the Falk saucier - you'll use it a lot!

Oh - the only one that has a lid is the classic All-Clad - the saucier and Windsors don't need one.


Mitch Weinstein aka "weinoo"

mweinstein@eGstaff.org

Tasty Travails - My Blog

My eGullet FoodBog - A Tale of Two Boroughs

Was it you baby...or just a Brilliant Disguise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have that same 1 QT "" All-Clad MC "saucier." ""

its a favorite some small amounts.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weinoo, how do you like that windsor or saucier versus the saucpan? Is .9 quarts too small or just right? I feel that 1.2qt may be too big for the additional expense since I have a 2qt already. Do you find yourself always wishing the .9 was a little bigger? Falk has a 1.37qt saucier. I very much prefer the saucier shape to the windsor shape.

I think at this point it is just personal preference...I don't wish the .9s were any larger. I think the copper Windsor is probably a little bigger than a quart (it is, I just measured it), but for practical purposes you really can't fill it to the brim anyway.

I might just go for the Falk saucier - you'll use it a lot!

Oh - the only one that has a lid is the classic All-Clad - the saucier and Windsors don't need one.

Thank you! So those two don't come with lids, but the Falk I'm looking at does. Would a lid be useful? Do you think that Falk would be better in a .9qt or 1.37 qt size? I alread have 2qt so I don't know...plus saucier's have a large diameter and I don't want to take up a ton of room with it. Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always go a little bigger. In my case, I have plenty of lids and I can always find something to cover the pan with even if it doesn't have a dedicated lid.

I'd get the 1.37 qt. pan sans the lid. I don't think you'll be disappointed.


Mitch Weinstein aka "weinoo"

mweinstein@eGstaff.org

Tasty Travails - My Blog

My eGullet FoodBog - A Tale of Two Boroughs

Was it you baby...or just a Brilliant Disguise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two such pans, a 1-quart and a 1.5-quart. I use the 15-quart so much that it lives on the stove top. I use the 1-quart somewhat less as it doesn't fit my burners quite as well as the 1.5-quart. In my previous place, the 1-quart got a little more use only because of burner size. The 1.5-quart is a little wider in diameter between the two.

Both pans are used for most every purpose, melting butter, making simple sauces, boiling water, making hot cereal, reheating certain leftovers. I have a 2-quart pan, but it's a little too big and bulky for much of what I described, but much of my cooking here is just for myself.

The 1.5-quart pan is an All-Clad D5 model, and I love it. It heats very evenly, I can cook things at very low burner settings, and it cleans up beautifully. The 1-quart pan is an older, all SS, Simply Calphalon model, and I have been very happy with that pan as well.

2 people like this

 ... Shel

"... ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Shel, I think I recommended that d5 to you! I love my 2qt too!

I'm still not sure I want something as big as that 1.37qt saucier. It has a larger stovetop presence because of the larger diameter. And if you said your Windsor fits more than a quart, then that .9qt saucier probably fits about a quart which would be perfect. I'm extemely pleased with my 2qt and want more extremes I think than a bunch of pans that are all similar in size.

Unless you think a 1.37 is definitely the size I should go for. I would use it to make small quantities of sauces, strain reductions into it, among a other things I can't think of right now.

I might do some tests at home. I have a 1 quart pyrex dish that may be similar in size to the saucier. That could help.

So you don't ever use the lid for your smaller pans? I only use the 2qt lid once in awhile so I really don't imagine using the lid for the 1.37 or .9 qt pan.

Do you prefer the Windors or saucier over the saucepan? Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my stove, the small AC saucier is unstable because of the configuration of the grate over the burner. I have a shallow 2 quart straight sided saute pan that is broad enough to use with a big strainer and not lose liquids.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good point. My grates now are fine, but I'm moving in the next 8 months so who knows how my grates will be then. I'm thinking the 1.37qt would be fine, but the .9qt could be a problem. I'm really back and forth on these two and I'm going to go do some measurements at home, but now I'm thinking 1.37qt would be good because it is a bit bigger and has the room if I should need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I think slightly bigger (1.37) is better only because there are going to be times when you don't want to use the 2 quart and the 1 quart won't be big enough. As an aside, I also have two 2 cup "butter melters" - basically, tiny saucepans.

Lids are superfluous - you can always find something to cover these small pans with.

Treat yourself to the Falk.

1 person likes this

Mitch Weinstein aka "weinoo"

mweinstein@eGstaff.org

Tasty Travails - My Blog

My eGullet FoodBog - A Tale of Two Boroughs

Was it you baby...or just a Brilliant Disguise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Yeah Shel, I think I recommended that d5 to you! I love my 2qt too!

... I'm still not sure I want something as big as that 1.37qt saucier. It has a larger stovetop presence because of the larger diameter. And if you said your Windsor fits more than a quart, then that .9qt saucier probably fits about a quart which would be perfect. I'm extemely pleased with my 2qt and want more extremes I think than a bunch of pans that are all similar in size.

... So you don't ever use the lid for your smaller pans? I only use the 2qt lid once in awhile so I really don't imagine using the lid for the 1.37 or .9 qt pan.

I almost bought a 10-inch D5 skillet last week - big sale somewhere - but I just could not find a way to rationalize the purchase. Kind of a bummer <sigh>

The size and shape decision is so very personal a thing. However, I like the idea of similar capacity saucepans - I have a 1-qt, 1.5-qt, 2-qt, 3-qt, 4-qt, 5.5-qt, and an 8-qt. Most of my stovetop, saucepan cooking is done in the 4-qt and lower range, so the closeness in capacity is really useful.

I frequently use lids, but it really comes down to what I'm cooking. They all came with lids, so the lids are handy.

1 person likes this

 ... Shel

"... ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My small saucier is also a bit unstable. Ive learned to move it off-set from center a bit in the direction of the handle, which i think causes the priblem a bit.

saucier's have the advantage of matching nicely with the correct size balloon whisk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Yeah Shel, I think I recommended that d5 to you! I love my 2qt too!

... I'm still not sure I want something as big as that 1.37qt saucier. It has a larger stovetop presence because of the larger diameter. And if you said your Windsor fits more than a quart, then that .9qt saucier probably fits about a quart which would be perfect. I'm extemely pleased with my 2qt and want more extremes I think than a bunch of pans that are all similar in size.

... So you don't ever use the lid for your smaller pans? I only use the 2qt lid once in awhile so I really don't imagine using the lid for the 1.37 or .9 qt pan.

I almost bought a 10-inch D5 skillet last week - big sale somewhere - but I just could not find a way to rationalize the purchase. Kind of a bummer <sigh>

The size and shape decision is so very personal a thing. However, I like the idea of similar capacity saucepans - I have a 1-qt, 1.5-qt, 2-qt, 3-qt, 4-qt, 5.5-qt, and an 8-qt. Most of my stovetop, saucepan cooking is done in the 4-qt and lower range, so the closeness in capacity is really useful.

I frequently use lids, but it really comes down to what I'm cooking. They all came with lids, so the lids are handy.

I have the d5 10 inch skillet. Love it. I find it small sometimes depending on what I am using it for (only like 8.5inches of actual flat surface), but I love, love, love it. And my d5 3qt saute pan. And my d5 12 inch non stick skillet (even though I haven't used it yet and it sits in its box above my closet).

You have a great range of pans though all spaced equally at about a quart. I am trying to avoid 1.5qt, 2qt, and 2.2qt or something like that. I think there are some redundancies in that.

My final goal (I have the astericks) is a 1.37qt saucier, 2 qt saucepan*, 3.17qt saucier, 3.75qt saucepan, 6.4qt saucepan, 8 inch non-stick fry pan*, 10 inch fry pan*, 11.8 inch fry pan, 12 inch cast iron skillet*, 12 inch non-stick fry pan*, 3 qt saute pan*, 8qt. stock pot*, 8.5qt pressure cooker, 12qt stock pot, 20 quart stock pot. Plus a few dutch ovens to go along with a 3.5qt I have and more stock pots.

There isn't much between the 3.75qt and 6.4qt saucepan. I wish Matfer Bourgeat made a saucepan inbetween because Falk is just so expensive and I want a rolled lip with my saucepan. I also am not sure if that 3.17qt saucier is as useful as I dream it would be (versus the 3.75 saucepan). I love the shape of the saucier, but with a 9.5 inch diameter it could be pretty big and not sure how much I'd use it. Hopefully that 1.37 qt will give me an idea of if I'd like the 3.17qt saucier.


Edited by Robenco15 (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any information or experience with this Matfer Bourgeat pan called a sauteuse?

http://www.previninc.com/shop/Matfer-Bourgeat-Copper-Slanted-Sauteuses.html

Is this just another name for a saucier? The picture is pretty terrible in terms of telling exactly what it is and I contacted the company and no other image is available. The 1qt is what I'm interested in as I don't want a 2qt saucier to go along with a 2qt saucepan I have. Smaller is better and 1qt should be good (compared to the 1.37qt I was looking at of the Falk).

The Falk is more expensive and has a weird stainless steel interior that is worrying me, compared to the polished stainless steel of the Matfer.

Thank you to anyone who has any information or experience with this type of sauteuse pan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Falk saucier. What about the stainless steel interior worries you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that the stainless is different than the typical stainless interior you'd find in an all clad or similar pan. It doesn't seem to be 18/10, or whatever the typical stainless steel is and it has a blueish gray color. I've also read and seen photos of the stainless steel interior with black spots all over it from someone who owned the pan. That is weird.

I don't know how I feel about the stainless interior being brushed and I've read it is harder to clean than the normal stainless steel interior of most pans.

Unfortunately all I have to go by are reviews of people who have owned them as I can't see them in person until I make a purchase. I understand there are a lot of positive reviews, but that is a negative that pops up from time to time. I also have read that the cast iron handle isn't exactly cast iron and rusts if you don't season it, but that doesn't both me as I would buy the stainless steel handle.

So any information on that Matfer Bourgeat sauteuse? The previn website seems to list different dimensions in terms of volume size than other websites. They stand by them though so it is quite confusing.


Edited by Robenco15 (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Falk distributor's web site:

All of our cookware is lined with high-quality 200 micron austenitic 18/8 stainless steel. Similar to the exterior of our cookware, the lining has a satin finish for easier maintenance. For more information on stainless steel grades, please click here.

And cast iron is cast iron, no?

I think when you read "reviews" from people on various sites, most of them are fairly clueless as to how they're supposed to treat their pans.

I also think you're over analyzing this purchase. Either Matfer or Falk will be great.

This article about staninless steel might be of interest as well.

1 person likes this

Mitch Weinstein aka "weinoo"

mweinstein@eGstaff.org

Tasty Travails - My Blog

My eGullet FoodBog - A Tale of Two Boroughs

Was it you baby...or just a Brilliant Disguise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am definitely over analyzing it. When I prepare to spend over 200 dollars on a pan I tend to do a lot of research. I think what it is coming down to is the size and the matfer is either too small or too big and the Falk at 1.32 quarts seems to be just right. I'll take more opinions though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's an opinion, though it's not one I can claim any credit for as I read it myself here on eG. In most of the excellent restaurants that you go to for fantastic food, the cookware is cost-conscious no-brand aluminum.


QUIET!  People are trying to pontificate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am definitely over analyzing it. When I prepare to spend over 200 dollars on a pan I tend to do a lot of research. I think what it is coming down to is the size and the matfer is either too small or too big and the Falk at 1.32 quarts seems to be just right. I'll take more opinions though!

Analyze the heck out of it! You've got to live with your decision a lot longer than we do <LOL>.

Hey, I do pretty much the same thing, and when I finally do make a decision, I'm much more likely to be happier and have a more suitable product than not. And everything I've taken careful time to decide upon, gives me pleasure every time I use it - every time!


 ... Shel

"... ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's an opinion, though it's not one I can claim any credit for as I read it myself here on eG. In most of the excellent restaurants that you go to for fantastic food, the cookware is cost-conscious no-brand aluminum.

I agree! But I want what I want and like what I like.

Back in October when I was in the Per Se kitchen they were all using All Clad (probably copper core but it was hard to tell). I'm sure there are many reasons for that, a lot of it being Thomas Keller's name and marketing, etc., but nonetheless they do use it. Which is unfortunate if it is copper core because that truly isn't giving them the benefits of copper anyway.

But yes, I am well aware most restaurants use cheaper aluminum pans, and a great pan doesn't make me a better cook, but it is something I've always wanted and I'm comfortable spending my money how I want to.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.