Q&A -- Understanding Stovetop Cookware

[Mottmott]

Exactly.  Although I'm not sure how much difference this makes in a home kitchen and on a home stove.

The oval pans, in my experience, are primarily useful for cooking one fish or fillet at a time.  This is something that happens often in a restaurant kitchen, but rarely at home.  A fish large enough for two (or more) is impractical to cook on the stovetop in a single pan, and a fillet large enough for two (or more) is easily portioned prior to cooking to fit in a round pan.

This is not to say that an oval "fish pan" is completely useless in a home kitchen, but I think a large high-end nonstick skillet is a lot more functional.

←

I have a beautiful copper one I bought at Dehillerin 30 years ago. When I make Toklas's baked shad in wine and cream I use it, but mostly I use it for gratins or for buffet serving.

[Mottmott]

Do any of the copper mfgrs have saute or fry pans with both handle and loop? I find a large filled pan a little heavy to move off the stove without worrying about tipping, etc. (I may yet go for the 11" Falk double loop casserole, but perversely I find pouring food out of my AC sauteuse awkward compared with long handled pans and prefer the handle/loop combo if I can get it.)

Yeah, I'm a short little weakling with hand/wrist problems. I finally went to ss because it's light, though from my point of view, that's all it has going for it.

[slkinsey]

Do any of the copper mfgrs have saute or fry pans with both handle and loop?

←

No fry pans of which I am aware, but most of them include a "helper handle" on the opposite side of their 11-inch sauté pans.

[andiesenji]

Do any of the copper mfgrs have saute or fry pans with both handle and loop?  I find a large filled pan a little heavy to move off the stove without worrying about tipping, etc. (I may yet go for the 11" Falk double loop casserole, but perversely I find pouring food out of my AC sauteuse awkward compared with long handled pans and prefer the handle/loop combo if I can get it.)

Yeah, I'm a short little weakling with hand/wrist problems. I finally went to ss because it's light, though from my point of view, that's all it has going for it.

←

I couldn't find a picture of it right away, however if you take a look at this wok/fry pan

by All Clad you can see the type of pan I have that is made by Mauviel - copper lined with SS.

Mine has a rounder bottom and I use it on a wok ring. Had I seen this one prior to spending the money for the copper, I would probably had gotten this one.

I do have a large wok but sometimes I want to stir fry or fry something that doesn't need to the space of the big wok.

I think this is a pretty good buy.

[winesonoma]

Falk's 11" saute pan has a helper handle.

[Smithy]

All this talk about copper and its quick response time makes me wonder: would that matter on an electric coil stove? Y'all have me salivating for for some of that Mauviel, but I suspect it would be the culinary equivalent of putting a turbocharger in a Ford Pinto.

[Dave the Cook]

With the trend towards massive cast-iron grates on gas cooktops, the responsiveness that people like about gas has actually given way to slower heat-up/cool-down periods. Something like a DCS, though it has a higher energy output, isn't much faster to get heat to the pan than a good electric, and it retains a lot of residual heat as well. Luckily, you can always move things off the burner. I'm amazed at how many people overlook this possibility.

[slkinsey]

In terms of responsiveness, it would definitely make much less difference on an electric coil stove. With an electric coil stove, you are effectively limited because the heat source itself is not very responsive. A piece of cookware can only respond as fast as the heat source changes.

The one advantage a responsive material would have on an electric coil stove, and it's not clear that this is enough of an advantage to be worth the money, is that you could take the pan off the burner entirely and it would cool down quickly.

[andiesenji]

Here is the small copper wok with helper handle I have, finally found a pic.

here

I use this a lot for quick cooking, frying.

It is the "tabletop" line and not as heavy as the professional line but is certainly adequate for my needs. The balance is good and it is easy to handle for someone with arthritic hands.

[AmbrosiaFood]

I have a pair of matching copper tin lined saucepans I bought on E-bay. These are a complete mystery to me. I have not ever seen anything quite like them [i would post a picture, but I do not own a digital camera].

One is about 4 quarts, and the other is about 8 quarts. They are about 1/4 inch thick copper! The sides are straight, with a copper banding around the top. The handles are not like French saucepans, although they are wrought iron, they are straight. They appear to be quite old, and are in perfect shape, except they need cleaning and re-tinning.

Can you tell me what these monsters are? Why would they be so thick and heavy a gauge? What could they have been used for?

Thanks.

[Smithy]

In terms of responsiveness, it would definitely make much less difference on an electric coil stove.  With an electric coil stove, you are effectively limited because the heat source itself is not very responsive.  A piece of cookware can only respond as fast as the heat source changes.

The one advantage a responsive material would have on an electric coil stove, and it's not clear that this is enough of an advantage to be worth the money, is that you could take the pan off the burner entirely and it would cool down quickly.

←

That's about what I suspected. I'm pretty good at shifting my pans around on the coil when I overdo the heat, so I can probably save my money for other purposes. Thanks for the answer.

[Mottmott]

Falk's 11" saute pan has a helper handle.

←

Thanks, to you, Sam, Andy for your help.

Great, it's the saute pan I'm mostly interested in. I know what I'm getting for Christmas.

[andiesenji]

I have a pair of matching copper tin lined saucepans I bought on E-bay.  These are a complete mystery to me.  I have not ever seen anything quite like them [i would post a picture, but I do not own a digital camera]. 

One is about 4 quarts, and the other is about 8 quarts.  They are about 1/4 inch thick copper!  The sides are straight, with a copper banding around the top.  The handles are not like French saucepans, although they are wrought iron, they are straight.  They appear to be quite old, and are in perfect shape, except they need cleaning and re-tinning.

Can you tell me what these monsters are?  Why would they be so thick and heavy a gauge?  What could they have been used for? 

Thanks.

←

The old ones are very thick copper because they were put directly over the wood/coal fire in an old range. One of the lids over the firebox would be lifted out using an implement known as a lid-lifter and the pan would be set down into the round opening which has a lip to hold the lid and which will also hold the pot. Most pots were made with flat bottoms and were of the correct diameter so they would fit these openings. Most stoves had three sizes of openings, some had four, smaller ones to fit sauce pans and larger ones to fit poaching pans or jelly basins.

The poaching pans and jelly basins had rounded bottoms, the poaching pans often had depressions in them which causes people nowdays to mistake them for baking pans but they were not. When the water was simmering, the cook would use the handle of a wooden spoon to stir the water in the depression and then slide an egg from a saucer into the center of the little whirlpool that had been created, then do the same in the next depression. This kept the egg white from spreading through the water.

Interestingly these came in several sizes, bigger depressions for larger eggs, hens, ducks, etc. and very small ones for quail eggs, bantams, etc.

All the very old copper pans made for use on these ranges had very thick bottoms and are much heavier than the modern ones. My old French jelly basin is 18 inches in diameter and weighs 19 pounds. My newer one, same size, weighs 12 pounds.

[andiesenji]

I forgot to ask about the straight handles. Are they solid all the way to the end?

Many early pots had handles that were round at the end and hollow. This was so a tapered piece of wood, usually having been soaked in water, could be twisted into the handle to form an extension to make it easier to lift the heavier pots.

[AmbrosiaFood]

I forgot to ask about the straight handles.  Are they solid all the way to the end? 

Many early pots had handles that were round at the end and hollow.  This was so a tapered piece of wood, usually having been soaked in water, could be twisted into the handle to form an extension to make it easier to lift the heavier pots.

←

Thanks for explaining about why the pans are so very thick! The handles are solid cast iron.

These pans are so heavy, even empty they make cast iron seem light!

[dknywbg]

This morning I left the burner on under my Calphalon nonstick skillet and a spatula melted all over it. I'd like to replace it, but I wasn't too thrilled with that exact model--the nonstickiness of it wasn't holding up very well (the pan was maybe 3 years old), and food crusted in the rivets no matter how much I scrubbed.

Any suggestions on which brands are best? Or should I just buy a cheap one and accept that it'll only last a year or two?

[winesonoma]

This morning I left the burner on under my Calphalon nonstick skillet and a spatula melted all over it. I'd like to replace it, but I wasn't too thrilled with that exact model--the nonstickiness of it wasn't holding up very well (the pan was maybe 3 years old), and food crusted in the rivets no matter how much I scrubbed.

Any suggestions on which brands are best? Or should I just buy a cheap one and accept that it'll only last a year or two?

←

You should do some research and buy something that you can pass down to your children. Unless the nonstick is all you care about. If so go to the local restaurant supply and buy one. Good cookware is a thing of joy.

[dknywbg]

I couldn't agree more. In this instance, though, it is the nonstick aspect that I'm most interested in--I've got loads of other good quality pots & pans, and when I bought this one I thought it would last much longer than it did. Granted, I helped along its demise by melting that spatula into it, but like I said it was on its way out anyway...

[Melic]

I couldn't agree more. In this instance, though, it is the nonstick aspect that I'm most interested in--I've got loads of other good quality pots & pans, and when I bought this one I thought it would last much longer than it did. Granted, I helped along its demise by melting that spatula into it, but like I said it was on its way out anyway...

←

I can't believe I just saw Mauviel Copper Nonstick frypans at cooking.com.

Cuprinox Style. The 9." nonstick is ... $234.95. The 11" is ... $269.95!

In stock ... indeed.

This is what you *don't* want to get - I hope!

(I'm still trying to get my mind around what the target market is for copper nonstick, and it isn't a pretty thought.)

For that kind of money, you could buy the 9.4" and 11" Falk copper frypans *and* 5 sets of the 8" and 10" Calphalon Commerical nonstick frypans that used to be on closeout at amazon.com (I think they finally sold out), but I've seen them still at Bed Bath and Beyond and in a local department store. $39.95 for the 2.

I'd recommend picking up a couple of packs of those Calphalon nonsticks if you can find them. Everybody swears by them. I have a Bourgeat nonstick (the one with the nonstick on the inside and the outside) that I've had for years and it's still going strong.

But don't feel bad about melting stuff. Not long after I got an electric teakettle, in my usual state of morning uncionsciousness I filled the kettle ... and then placed it *on the stove burner.*

mmmm, acrid smoke. One ruined teakettle. One ruined burner. The woman at GE just laughed when I called to order the replacement burner - she said my story didn't even rate among all the tales she's heard of what people do to their stoves. Oh well.

And there's always the scanpan frypan. It's good, too.

Anyway, try the Calphalon My dad hasn't been able to ruin the ones I got for him yet! That's as good an endorsement as anything can get!

[JohnN]

Hello,

After a couple of days I've finally waded through this course and Q&A section. Wow.

First, thanks to Sam (and others) for all this great information! Certainly it has changed my whole perspective on cookware.

I did come up with a couple of questions.

First, is the stainless used in Falk cookware, "magnetic", suitable for use on induction stovetops? I assume not.

Also, I'm very confused by Demeyere. I see the references on their we site that they use a 7 ply contruction.

However, Sam indicates:

Demeyere employs an aluminum layer of 2.3 mm on woks, 3.0 mm to 3.3 mm on “conical sauteuses and simmering pots” and approximately 3.9 mm on fry pans.

If they use a three ply construction, how could they get away with making the 7 ply statment? Also, if they used a 7 ply construction, it seems the performance would go down, not up. The only reason I could even think of to do this is if some of the plies were specifically for induction, meaning two stainless layers, Al, and layer(s) of a ferrious metal. But it isn't clear how good of a pot that would be on a non-induction stove.

It would seem that if Demeyere actually used 3.9mm Al on their fry pans, that they would be better in all ways to the stainless All-Clad. However, if they use a 7 ply sandwich, it could be anyone's guess?!

I'm kind of looking at this from a bit of a weird perspective, since I'm flirting with the idea of an induction cooktop, but I currently have a glass top radiant cooktop. I am also considering a gas cooktop, but due to the counter, I probably could only support a consumer model so the induction looks more attractive.

This makes the All-Clad stainless (Al core) somewhat attractive since they should do OK on various cooktops, and it sounds like they do real well on the indunction (why oh why does nobody make a nice thick magnetic stainless, copper-core line?).

So this means if the Falk wares don't have magnetic, then it sounds like the main options are Demeyere and All-Clad.

Hmm.

Any thoughts would be appreciated (but no, we aren't taking out the countertop! :-)

Thanks,

-john

Edited January 9, 2005 by JohnN (log)

[slkinsey]

First, is the stainless used in Falk cookware, "magnetic", suitable for use on induction stovetops? I assume not.

You assume correctly. Wouldn't do much good if it was magnetic anyway, since it is on the inside.

Also, I'm very confused by Demeyere.  I see the references on their we site that they use a 7 ply contruction. 

However, Sam indicates:

Demeyere employs an aluminum layer of 2.3 mm on woks, 3.0 mm to 3.3 mm on “conical sauteuses and simmering pots” and approximately 3.9 mm on fry pans.

If they use a three ply construction, how could they get away with making the 7 ply statment? Also, if they used a 7 ply construction, it seems the performance would go down, not up.

Theis whole "7 ply" claim is just a bunch of marketing mumbojumbo. If you look on the Demeyere web site, you will see the following description of their "7 ply" material"

Details of the 7-ply

1. Stainless steel at the inside of the pot

2. Thin layer of pure aluminium to assure (to ensure the adhesion)

3. Layer of aluminium alloy (for heat conducting)

4. Thin layer of pure aluminium (to ensure the adhesion)

5,6,7 Combination of three special steel alloys with magnetic properties (for optimal behaviour on induction)

So what do we have here? We have an inner layer of stainless steel. Okay, that's one layer. Then we have a miniscule bit of bonding material that adheres the stainless cladding to the aluminum alloy core. Are we going to call this a "layer?" Demeyere does, but it doesn't pass my bullshit test. Then we have a thick layer of aluminum alloy. Okay, that's the second layer. Then we have another miniscule bit of bonding material. Again, not really a layer. Then we have an outer layer of stainless steel, supposedly in "three special alloys with magnetic properties" (like magnetic steel is so special). That amounts to one layer as far as I am concerned. So, in reality, we have three layers: an outer layer of magnetic stainless steel, an inner layer of aluminum alloy and an inner layer of stainless steel. This is why I included this text in my class:

Some manufacturers claim to employ special “multi-layer” interiors that are better than pure aluminum layers. Don’t be fooled by this marketing ploy. The interiors of these pans are 99% the same as those employed in the other fully clad designs.

Demeyere's "layer inflation" is designed to appeal to people who believe that "more is better." Like somehow seven layers are better than three layers. Really, the optimal configuration is only two layers: an thick outer layer of thermal material and a thin inner layer of nonreactive material. This maximizes the thermal benefits of the thermal material while protecting the food from the problems of reactivity.

It would seem that if Demeyere actually used 3.9mm Al on their fry pans, that they would be better in all ways to the stainless All-Clad.  However, if they use a 7 ply sandwich, it could be anyone's guess?!

Demeyere claims that the total thickness of the "7-ply material" for frypans is 4.8 mm. I assumed that the stainless layers were similar to the thickness of the stainless layers used by All-Clad (0.44 mm interior layer, 0.46 exterior layer), so doing the math I came up with an approximate thickness of 3.9 mm for the thermal material. I doubt it is any thicker than 3.9 mm, but it could be thinner.

Assuming it is 3.9 mm, you correctly surmise that this is better than All-Clad Stainless in terms of thermal material. It is right around the same as All-Clad MasterChef, which has an aluminum exterior of 3.94 mm. That said, the MasterChef line does not work with induction.

I'm kind of looking at this from a bit of a weird perspective, since I'm flirting with the idea of an induction cooktop, but I currently have a glass top radiant cooktop.  I am also considering a gas cooktop, but due to the counter, I probably could only support a consumer model so the induction looks more attractive.

Personally, induction doesn't interest me all that much. I'd rather have gas than any other heat source. They do make professional-style in-counter gas cooktops with high powered burners, fwiw.

This makes the All-Clad stainless (Al core) somewhat attractive since they should do OK on various cooktops, and it sounds like they do real well on the indunction (why oh why does nobody make a nice thick magnetic stainless, copper-core line?).

If you're determined to get an induction cooktop, I'd recommend getting cookware specifically designed for induction. In particular, you might look at the Induc'Inox line by Mauviel. They are made with 2.0 mm of magnetic steel fully clad with stainless steel. This means that, rather than having the induction hob heat up a thin layer of magnetic steel which conducts heat into the thermal layer (this is how All-Clad and Demeyere work with induction) with Induc'Inox, the thermal material itself is heated up by the magnetic field.

[JohnN]

Sam,

Thanks for your help. Your insight is greatly appreciated.

Assuming it is 3.9 mm, you correctly surmise that this is better than All-Clad Stainless in terms of thermal material.  It is right around the same as All-Clad MasterChef, which has an aluminum exterior of 3.94 mm.  That said, the MasterChef line does not work with induction.

And, I really do like the stainless exterior coating for us cleaning weenies (yes, read: dishwasher :-O ).

Personally, induction doesn't interest me all that much.  I'd rather have gas than any other heat source.  They do make professional-style in-counter gas cooktops with high powered burners, fwiw.

If you wanted to thow out any names, I'd appreciate it. One other consideration I have is that I need something that fits in (or is larger than) my current hole. I haven't looked closely at the measurements to see how the induction would fit (hey, we just finished remodeling, I feel pretty goofy about already tearing the cooktop out!). We do have natural gas at the house so this is an option.

If you're determined to get an induction cooktop, I'd recommend getting cookware specifically designed for induction.  In particular, you might look at the Induc'Inox line by Mauviel.  They are made with 2.0 mm of magnetic steel fully clad with stainless steel.  This means that, rather than having the induction hob heat up a thin layer of magnetic steel which conducts heat into the thermal layer (this is how All-Clad and Demeyere work with induction) with Induc'Inox, the thermal material itself is heated up by the magnetic field.

Yah, I suppose. But I saw your comment about how these don't work well with non-induction stoves and from what I've heard, even the All-Clad stainless work pretty darn well with induction. It might be a bit before I get a new cooktop, but hey, pots and pans I can start collecting now! :-)

-john

Edited January 11, 2005 by JohnN (log)

[tim]

Sam,

You course has wonderful information. There is one issue which has changed in the past two years, the thickness of the aluminum layer in All-Clad.

You have stated, "It is right around the same as All-Clad MasterChef, which has an aluminum exterior of 3.94 mm. " I remember that this same measurement is included in your course.

Like you I travel through cookware shops with my micrometer in hand and have noticed that All-Clad may be dieting. I think that you will find that the new All-Clad MC2 has a total thickness of 3.05mm, resulting in 2.58mm of aluminum.

I would appreciate your confirmation of this measurement. I wonder if the diet has been extended to their other pans.

Thank you,

Tim

ps: Word is out that Meyer will no longer market fully clad pans. Also Calphalon will be introducing a new fully clad Contemporary stainless line. Any comments?

[slkinsey]

There is one issue which has changed in the past two years,  the thickness of the aluminum layer in All-Clad.

You have stated, "It is right around the same as All-Clad MasterChef, which has an aluminum exterior of 3.94 mm. "  I remember that this same measurement is included in your course.

Like you I travel through cookware shops with my micrometer in hand and have noticed that All-Clad may be dieting.  I think that you will find that the new All-Clad MC2 has a total thickness of 3.05mm, resulting in 2.58mm of aluminum.

Hmm. I suppose it is possible that it has changed. My information came from an All-Clad rep some time ago. Never bothered to measure it myself. Maybe that's why they call it "MC2" now?

[mrsadm]

Thanks to Mr. slkinsey, I am now an edchu-kated cookware person.

Yesterday I went to a local housewares discount place where you never know what they'll have (closeout stuff I think). It is a guilty pleasure to drop in often and see what they have. If you don't know brands and prices, though, it could be a gamble.

I found a Demeyere saucepan, about 3 quarts in size, with a glass lid. I have no idea what line it is or what material the bottom is. Checking various web sites of cookware sellers, the saucepans all have metal lids; although I did find a site that sold optional glass lids for these pans. And of course the staff in this place doesn't know anything about the merchandise.

So I'm not sure what I have but it sure looks nice and I look forward to using it based on all the good things I've read about Demeyere. Best news, it was only $20!

Thanks to e-gullet I could recognize the bargain and move away from the expensive sets of all-clad in all the catalogs.