Flared Saute Pan/Saucier Size and Use Question

[Robenco15]

Hi All,

 

I posted this on Chowhound and realized that you guys here probably have plenty of experiences and great advice to share as well!

 

Anyway, I just discovered an opportunity to purchase the 4 quart Matfer Bourgeat flared saute pan (saucier) with a lid at a great price. It's also one of the few places I've found the 4 quart version.

 

My question is about the size. I have a Falk 1.37 quart saucier that is a great size, but eventually I know I will want/need a larger saucier. Initially it was the Falk 3.06 quart, but I was curious if you think a 4 quart saucier would be more versatile. There is only a 50 dollar difference, in favor of the Falk, so cost isn't really playing into my decision.

 

What other uses are out there for a saucier of that size? My smaller one is the obvious sauce reduction, sauce making pan. Curious about what other options open up with a 4 quart pan with a diameter of 11 inches.

 

My saucepans' sizes are .8 and 2 quarts. I plan on purchasing 3.75 quart and 6.4 quart saucepans as well as a 5.2 quart straight sided saute pan (all Matfer Bourgeat and all purchased at a slow rate). I figure I should evenly space out the pan sizes, therefore a 3 quart saucier would fit nicely in the middle of the 2qt and 3.75qt saucepan. Not sure how important that is though now...

 

Thank you so much for the input!

 

-Robert

[JoNorvelleWalker]

Copper gets very heavy quickly.

[Robenco15]

I'm not worried about weight. I'm young enough and strong enough. Good point though.

[pbear]

I'd phrase the question the opposite direction: Why do you want to get conventional saucepans in any of those sizes?  Tall saucepans I understand (and perhaps that's what you mean), as those are handy when you want deep-for-volume, e.g., when deep-frying or anticipate pureeing with a stick blender.  As between conventional and saucier, though, I always take the latter because they're easier to work with.

[andiesenji]

I have this 4-quart pan and I use it all the time for all kinds of cooking - in my opinion, it is ideal for whisking sauces with a French whisk which nicely fits the curve of the sides.

 

It is deep enough for cooking sauces so that the bubbling does not spatter outside the pot, unless it is quite full.

 

The lid fits snugly enough so that it will retain moisture when cooking at very low heat - perfect for stove-top braising.  I used it Saturday to cook ox tail. 

 

It is heavy (10 + pounds)  but not so heavy that it is difficult for me to use - the handle is long enough so I can use both hands if it is quite full. 

I don't use it for shaking and tossing much because I use another pan for that. 

 

I also have the smaller 2 3/4 quart - 9 inches in diameter, which is okay for smaller amounts but doesn't have enough "headroom" when you really need to whisk something vigorously. 

 

And - it is ideal for stir frying small batches when one does not want to use the larger wok.

[Robenco15]

Andie, would you mind sharing a picture of the 4qt? And by chance you don't happen to hve a Matfer Bohrgeat fry pan do you? Pictures of that are hard to come by aside from their not so good stock photos. Thanks for the reply!

[Robenco15]

I'd phrase the question the opposite direction: Why do you want to get conventional saucepans in any of those sizes?  Tall saucepans I understand (and perhaps that's what you mean), as those are handy when you want deep-for-volume, e.g., when deep-frying or anticipate pureeing with a stick blender.  As between conventional and saucier, though, I always take the latter because they're easier to work with.

 

Those are just the saucepans I grew up having around. Maybe you are right. I can definitely see the need for a large saucepan, hence the 6.4 quart, but maybe there is no need for that 3.75 if I go with the 4 quart. I already have 2 qt and .8 qt along with that 1.37 qt saucier so I should be covered. Maybe in the long run it is better to have more smaller saucepans? Another .8 quart or 1.25 quart saucepan.

[slkinsey]

I think the more important question is what it is that you might want to do in a four quart pan that would make paying for stainless lined heavy copper worth the expense?  There are lots of potential uses for a 4 quart pan.  But maybe not so many that actually derive a benefit from stainless lined heavy copper.

[Robenco15]

I hear what you are saying but I definitely want copper. The copper I have I love. Using it to reduce stocks among an assortment of other things makes it worth it for me. And honestly, I don't mind the cost enough for me to really lay out a laundry list of what I would use it for. I only want one 4 qt saucier. Might as well get the one I want forever.

[andiesenji]

Photos of the 11 inch saucier with lid   and the 12 inch fry pan.   No lid came with the fry pan but I have a lid for a 10 quart "casserole" (no longer available in U.S. - I purchased it in the late '90s - the largest now available is 8 1/2 qt) that fits it reasonably well.

 

Correction!  The fry pan is Mauviel professional  2.5mm copper and was the first stainless steel lined copper piece I purchased.  I think the newer ones are not as heavy - this one weighs 7 lbs 13 oz.

 

 

 

I also have the 11 inch Saute pan/brazier, without lid, which has two handles and is very handy for stove top or oven.

I use it almost as much as the saucier because there are many dishes I prepare that start on the stove top and finish in the oven and my Cadco 1/2 size oven is not quite large enough for the long handle on the saucier but the brazier fits nicely and it is much easier for me to manage with the two handles.

 The lid of the saucier fits it reasonably well. 

Edited September 2, 2014 by andiesenji (log)

[Robenco15]

Andie,

 

Thank you so much! Those pictures are perfect!

 

The Bourgeat saucier looks great. I actually own the 10.2 inch Mauviel 2.5mm fry pan and I LOVE it! What a great fry pan. The 11.8 inch is on my list, but right now there are a few pans I want first.

 

Wish I could find a good picture of the Bourgeat Fry Pan. Based on its stock photo it doesn't really interest me. But the picture is no good. The Mauviel Fry Pan though is pretty much ideal in shape and size.

 

Thanks again!

[weinoo]

I think the more important question is what it is that you might want to do in a four quart pan that would make paying for stainless lined heavy copper worth the expense?  There are lots of potential uses for a 4 quart pan.  But maybe not so many that actually derive a benefit from stainless lined heavy copper.

 

Unless, of course, you just want it cause it's cool.

 

For instance, I know some people who have lots of knives. Are they all necessary?  Perhaps.

Edited September 3, 2014 by weinoo (log)

[andiesenji]

I have and use copper because I like it.  I used tin-lined copper for more than three DECADES because I liked it.  My unlined copper preserving pans give a result that is always just what I expect.  I have tried other types with less that optimal results.

 

It does require a little work - but as my big preserving pan was made int he 1890s and other than a few dents and dings is still in perfect WORKING condition, I believe that the pieces I have now will be used by my grandchildren and great grandchildren - as will the pieces I inherited from my great grandmother.

 

If you figure out the cost of something that last for decades, it really turns out to be more economical than pans that have to be replaced every few years.

I'm frugal with some things and long ago I figured out that buying the best saves money in the long run.  In kitchen ware same as with shoes and purses.

I have shoes that are 25 years old and still look like new because they were top quality and I took care of them. Same with my handbags because quality might have a high initial cost but doesn't have to be replaced as often.

[Robenco15]

Yeah I'm right with Andie. I have lived by the "buy it for life" code since I was a young kid. If I can have the best AND it will last me forever, the cost barely plays into the decision (within reason). I definitely don't own copper because it is cool. I own it for how it performs, how I can throw anything at it, and its durability/longevity. I also own a really high quality japanese knife. It is also really cool. That also has no bearing on why I purchased it.

[pbear]

Those are just the saucepans I grew up having around. Maybe you are right. I can definitely see the need for a large saucepan, hence the 6.4 quart, but maybe there is no need for that 3.75 if I go with the 4 quart. I already have 2 qt and .8 qt along with that 1.37 qt saucier so I should be covered. Maybe in the long run it is better to have more smaller saucepans? Another .8 quart or 1.25 quart saucepan.

 

Personally, I wouldn't have much use for two 8 qt pots, but maybe you do.  (Multiple small saucepans is another matter.)  OTOH, there's certainly an advantage to having a full range of sizes.  So, in case it's not clear, what I'm suggesting is that you would be well served by getting both 3 qt and 4 qt flares, without bothering with conventional saucepans in either size.  And, yes, a 6.4 qt or similar size would be quite useful, whether flared or straight (mine in this niche is 5.5 qt, flared).

 

Returning to the OP, I should like to emphasize that I don't think flares generally have a utilitarian advantage in the sense of being better suited for making certain dishes.  (Although they do, as you mention, work a little better for reductions.)*  Rather, I prefer flares because I find them easier to stir and easier to scrape down with a silicone spatula.  If you're more comfortable with straight sides because that's what you're used to, that's a perfectly good reason to go the other way.

 

* The other big exception for me, but this is very much "off label," is that flares are great for baking bread in boules by the covered pot method.

[weinoo]

I definitely don't own copper because it is cool. I own it for how it performs, how I can throw anything at it, and its durability/longevity. I also own a really high quality japanese knife. It is also really cool. That also has no bearing on why I purchased it.

 

Maybe I didn't express my thoughts perfectly (I often don't).  

 

Of course you own copper and want copper because of its performance.  But it also looks damn good and can last forever, with some care - those things Andie mentions above. All these taken together are what make it, in my opinion, cool cookware to own and use.

[Robenco15]

Pbear, thanks for your reply. Only thing I wanted to say was that I was referring to two .8 quart pots, as in 4/5 of a quart. There is a decimal hidden up front. I certainly don't see much of a need for two 8 quart pots. So I was thinking out loud more along the lines of multiple smaller saucepans.

The thing with flared saucepans is that they have a larger diameter but hold less than a straight sided saucepan with the same diameter. That takes up a lot more room on the stove top and when storing. I think a small flared pan and a 4qt size flared pan cover me for everything and anything inbetween.

[pbear]

Fair enough.  FWIW, my way of avoiding the decimal point problem is always to use a leading zero, e.g., 0.8 qt.  That's something I do in all writing, not just here.

[Robenco15]

Andie, how is the 4 qt in the oven? I know the Bourgeat handles can be at a pretty steep angle sometimes. Thanks!

[Robenco15]

Andie, whoops. I just noticed you answered this in your post with the pictures. Sorry. I don't have a 1/2 size oven. I have a pretty large oven. I guess the saucier would fit without much of a problem then. Thank you!

[Robenco15]

Andie (and anyone else),

 

Do you have any experience with the 1.6 quart, 7.9" diameter Bourgeat flared saute pan? I recently sold my 18cm Falk saucier and was thinking of moving up to the 20cm Falk saucier as it would be more versatile for my needs. However, I did take a look at the Bourgeat and the dimensions are nearly identical. The Bourgeat is slightly shorter and holds a little less (1.6 vs. 1.8 quarts). Was thinking the flat part of the Bourgeat may be larger and therefore give me more room for risotto and other smaller things may saute. But, as it is 1.6 quarts, that is incredibly close to my now sold 1.37 quart Falk, so I don't want to end up buying more or less the same pan after this is all said and done.

 

Thanks for your reply!

[agaven]

The size of your copper pan you prefer must match your strengh. Copper cookware are normallly heavier than other.