Q&A -- Understanding Stovetop Cookware

[Octaveman]

slkinsey,

I've been reading your article on cookware and am amazed and overwelmed by the info you gave. I also started going through the related Q&A but after 5 pages I became equally overwelmed by the wealth of info. Sometimes though, having so much information can make a decision that much harder specially when the options for purchasing are quite numerous.

If I may, can I ask your recommendation on a few things? It's my understanding that disk bottom pans like the Paderno and Sitram are the way to go without shelling out huge amounts of money so please correct me if I'm wrong at any time.

I have a set of Emeril pans purchased a few months ago that I guess are okay as they have a disk bottom. I've cooked with non-stick all my life and these are the first SS pans I've ever owned. What is your opinion of these?

I needed a while back a large fry/saute pan for frying up a dinner when I had guests so I bought the All-Clad SS 14" Sautee pan. I hate it. The heat does NOT flow to the sides and only what's above the burner get's cooked. Even when I'm sauteeing shallots for example, the shallots not directly above the burner just sit there, not sizzling, just sitting there. Not happy at all. So I guess my question is, is there a brand that would do a better job at frying up 6 pieces of chicken w/o having to do it in batches or in two pans? I noticed Paderno has a 14" fry...would that be the answer?

I also want to get a good braising dish and am thinking Staub 7.25 qt coquette. Is this a wise choice or is there another brand that would do the same thing for less? Also, does it really matter whether the interior is white are dark? If I'm making a sauce from the braising liquid, should I do it in the same pan or move it to a curved sauce pan? I thought I read, these kind of pans don't do well on top of the stove.

I appreciate your advice as I'm new to all this and the info is a bit overwelming.

Thanks again,

Bob

[slkinsey]

If I may, can I ask your recommendation on a few things? It's my understanding that disk bottom pans like the Paderno and Sitram are the way to go without shelling out huge amounts of money so please correct me if I'm wrong at any time.

Generally speaking, I would say this is true. However, there are certain circumstances where a straight gauge design is preferable (reduction pans, fry pans, sauce pans for making temperature-sensitive sauces, any pan that is smaller in diameter than the burner on your stove).

I have a set of Emeril pans purchased a few months ago . . . What is your opinion of these?

Not familiar with them, unfortunately.

I needed a while back a large fry/saute pan for frying up a dinner when I had guests so I bought the All-Clad SS 14" Sautee pan. I hate it. The heat does NOT flow to the sides and only what's above the burner get's cooked. Even when I'm sauteeing shallots for example, the shallots not directly above the burner just sit there, not sizzling, just sitting there. Not happy at all. So I guess my question is, is there a brand that would do a better job at frying up 6 pieces of chicken w/o having to do it in batches or in two pans? I noticed Paderno has a 14" fry...would that be the answer?

The main reason this is happening is because a fourteen inch saute pan is way too big if you have a regular residential stove. Even an expensive heavy copper pan would have trouble performing consistently across the base of the pan when heated by such a (relatively) tiny flame in the center. Eleven inches is generally the maxium practicable size for a regular residential burner.

It is possible to mitigate this limitation somewhat by using an oversize pan with an extremely thick base (e.g., Sitram Profiserie's 7 mm aluminum) and lengthy preheating. However, this will only really work in situations where you want to do extra high heat cooking (in other words, probably not sauteing shallots, etc.)

Ultimately, you're better off frying in batches of using two pans.

I also want to get a good braising dish and am thinking Staub 7.25 qt coquette. Is this a wise choice or is there another brand that would do the same thing for less? Also, does it really matter whether the interior is white are dark?

A 7.25 quart coquette! That's a lot of flirting, my friend!

Okay, bad joke. Seriously... I think Staub is the best, and the 7.25 qt cocotte would be a wonderful choice for braising. The prices among the top brands of enameled cast iron are similar enough that I don't think there is a significant bargain to be had one way or the other (except for the Le Creuset "seconds" sales, if you happen to live near an outlet).

Some people don't like a dark interior because they think it's hard to see levels of browning, etc. I don't find that to be a problem, and I do think Staub's dark interior is better at browning. But this will be a matter of personal preference.

If I'm making a sauce from the braising liquid, should I do it in the same pan or move it to a curved sauce pan? I thought I read, these kind of pans don't do well on top of the stove.

Ultimately, if you're making a reduction you're probably better off using a pan that is designed for reductions. I wouldn't want to reduce something down to a thick, syrupy consistency in a big enameled cast iron casserole, if for no other reason than the fact that the diameter will be too large (and thus the layer of liquid too thin) for the final stages of the reduction.

[JimHeard]

Dear Sam:

Thanks for your wonderful course and the extremely informative Q&A. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to get this level of detail and quality of advice anywhere else. I hope you won't mind answering a couple more questions about your most-used pan: the curved sauteuse evasee.

I have read your discussion and am convinced that this would be a very useful pan, and am trying to decide between copper (Falk 11") and aluminum (All-clad MC2, 4.5 Qt. saucier). I envision using the pan for sauteing (when our 11" Sitram saute pan is otherwise occupied), stir-frying, and cooking things like risotto that involve reducing and/or frequent stirring of liquids. For those uses, on a good (Wolf) gas stove, is there a reason to pay the premium for copper? The price difference between the Falk ($223 with 5% discount) and MC2 ($127 at Cookware & More) is almost $100.

Also, am I correct that the heat capacity would actually be higher with the aluminum pans, assuming the aluminum is thicker than 3.5mm?

Finally, for the uses mentioned, assuming I chose to go with aluminum, how would the All-clad "chef's pan" (12" x 3", 4 Qts.) compare with the All-clad Sauciere (10.5" x 4", 5.5 Qts.)? Am I correct in assuming that the "chef's pan" is really just an expensive wok, and would not be much good for anything but stir-frying?

Thanks for any guidance you can provide.

[fifi]

I want to add another angle to JimHeard's question. I have been thinking about the Falk pan that he described. My thinking is that the "responsiveness" (as in getting those precious BTUs in there more efficiently) of the copper would help with stir fry and saute on a less than ideal stove. Is there enough difference between the copper and aluminum to make the cost worthwhile?

[winesonoma]

Go with the Falk never need to go above med heat easy to clean and will build upper body strength as you use it. Damm thing is heavy but I will only buy Falk for saute, fry and sauce pans after using it.

[JimHeard]

For those folks looking for a good deal on Le Creuset enameled cast iron ovens, Caplan Duval in Montreal is having a sale with some incredible prices (e.g., 7.25 Qt. round oven at $115 - $119 U.S., depending on colors). I'm not affiliated with them, just a satisfied customer (I just bought a 5-quart oven from them).

Here's a link:

http://caplanduval2000.com/cgi-bin/cart.pl...ed+Ovens+012705

[slkinsey]

I am convinced that [a curved sauteuse evasee] would be a very useful pan, and am trying to decide between copper (Falk 11") and aluminum (All-clad MC2, 4.5 Qt. saucier).  I envision using the pan for sauteing (when our 11" Sitram saute pan is otherwise occupied), stir-frying, and cooking things like risotto that involve reducing and/or frequent stirring of liquids.  For those uses, on a good (Wolf) gas stove, is there a reason to pay the premium for copper?  The price difference between the Falk ($223 with 5% discount) and MC2 ($127 at Cookware & More) is almost $100.

Unfortunately, that's not a question where I can give you a definitive answer. Do I think the Falk piece is better? Yes. Is it worth an extra hundred bucks to me? Yes. Why? Because, taking the long view, the difference over five years is only twenty dollars a year to "drive a Ferrari instead of a Mustang." Of course All-Clad MC2 is very good stuff too, even though it appears that they may have reduced the thickness of the aluminum layer (see above).

From a purely design sandpoint, there are salient differences. The All-Clad pan has a smaller diameter (10.5 inches versus Falk's 11 inches) and taller sides (4 inches versus Falk's 3.6 inches). Both curved sauteuses evasee strike a middle ground between saucepan and saute pan. However, because of the difference in geometry (A-C's sides are 38% as tall as the diameter whereas Falk's are 32%) means that the All-Clad pan trends more towards a saucepan-like feel than the Falk pan.

Also, am I correct that the heat capacity would actually be higher with the aluminum pans, assuming the aluminum is thicker than 3.5mm?

It's hard to say for sure without doing some pretty tricky math, because the geometry of the two pans is not the same. There are some other complicating factors as well: 1. As Tim indicates upthread, it sounds like All-Clad may be using only 3.05 mm of aluminum in MC2 pans now; and 2. The specific heat figures I give in my class are for pure aluminum, which has better thermal characteristics than the aluminum alloys typically used in cookware (this is one of the many reasons that class is due for a "revised second edition"). So my gut feeling, subject to being corrected by someone willing to figure out the math, is that the All-Clad pan probably does not have a higher heat capacity.

Finally, for the uses mentioned, assuming I chose to go with aluminum, how would the All-clad "chef's pan" (12" x 3", 4 Qts.) compare with the All-clad Sauciere (10.5" x 4", 5.5 Qts.)?  Am I correct in assuming that the "chef's pan" is really just an expensive wok, and would not be much good for anything but stir-frying?

That is my feeling, yes. Not only that, but because the flat surface of the pan is so small, I don't think the conduction of heat from the flame to the pan would be very efficient sompared to the curved sauteuse evasee design unless a specialty burner is used.

I want to add another angle to JimHeard's question. I have been thinking about the Falk pan that he described. My thinking is that the "responsiveness" (as in getting those precious BTUs in there more efficiently) of the copper would help with stir fry and saute on a less than ideal stove. Is there enough difference between the copper and aluminum to make the cost worthwhile?

This may be a minor misunderstanding of responsiveness. Responsiveness, in its most simple description, describes a pan's ability to respond to changes in the heat setting. This means it heats up rapidly when you turn up the burner, and it cools down rapidly when you turn down the burner.

In stir-frying, the main thing you want is constant, high heat. The biggest problem with stir frying on a less than ideal stove is that the burner can't pour enough heat into the wok to keep it at peak heat while you're cooking. As a result, when you toss a bunch of food into the wok, the food sucks the heat out of the pan and the cooking temperature goes way down. Before you know it, you're stewing the food instead of stir frying it. There are four things you can do to address this problem:

1. Stir-fry in very small batches, removing the food items from the wok as they are cooked and before you drop in any new food items. A smaller the amount of food in the wok at one time means that less heat will be sucked out of the pan. This allows the cooking temperature to stay nice and high.

2. Massively preheat the wok. The hotter the wok is before you start cooking, the more heat it is holding. When you drop food items into the pan and they suck out some of that heat, the resultant lower temperature may still be acceptably high for stir frying if the temperature was screaming hot before you started.

3. Use a wok with a very high heat capacity. As I explained in the class, two pans at 700 degrees F are not equal. The pan with the higher heat capacity will be able to cook more ingredients at one time without losing temperature because it has more stored heat to work with. Here is an illustration:

The tank on the top represents the heat that is stored in the pan. The bucket on the bottom represents the heat that the food will take out of the pan. As you can see, once the heat pours out of the pan and fills up the bucket, the pan with the larger heat capacity will still have a lot of heat left. This is not so much of an issue in a professional setting. Chinese restaurants use a fairly thin wok together with an incredibly hot wok burner that pours heat into the pan from all sides, so the wok's heat is replenished as fast as the food can absorb it. Home stoves to not have this capability, so one solution is to store it up in the pan. I'm not sure why there aren't any extra-thick cast iron woks for home use, because this would seem ideal with respect to stored heat.

4. Don't use a wok. The curved shape us very inefficient in terms of heat conduction from a stove's burner. This makes it more difficult to heat the pan to temperature, and it also makes it more difficult to replenish the pan's heat when food is added. A broad flat bottom is the most efficient surface on a Western stove. I use a curved sauteuse evasee for stir frying, and I note from an article on Chinese cooking that appeared in the NY Times a while back, that the pictures of the Chinese chef preparing one of his dishes at home showed him using a heavy frypan, not a wok (he uses a wok for the same dish at his restaurant).

To directly answer your question: I think a heavy copper sauteuse evasee has a lot to offer for stir frying. It has a high heat capacity. It heats up to a high temperature quickly due to its excellent thermal conductivity. Once you add the food, it comes back to temperature quickly due to its excellent thermal conductivity. It has a broad flat bottom for efficient heat conduction from the stove's burner. It has curved sides which assist with the whole "stirring" part of "stir frying."

Does aluminum also offer some of these same benefits? Certainly. Not to the same degree, but they're there. If you are able to find a 7 mm thick aluminum wok, you should buy it. But my suspicion is that there is nothing on the market that competes with a heavy copper sauteuse evasee. So it more or less comes down to a personal choice about how much money you're willing to spend.

[Fat Guy]

I've heard over and over again from experienced Chinese cooks that, even on a home range with a weak burner, a very thin wok performs better than a thick one. There are some cast-iron and heavy anodized aluminum woks on the market but, for example, both Eddie Schoenfeld and the chef's wife at Empire Szechuan Columbus have told me that, for whatever reason, the expected benefit of heat retention does not materialize with the thick woks, whereas the thinner you go the better you do on a weak burner. So, I guess my question is, are these people wrong (it's possible) or, if they're right, why would that be? I guess one thing worth considering is that a wok is supposed to have multiple heat zones, with a center hotspot and cooler zones radiating out -- so what may seem like an inefficient shape by Western cooking standards is actually the desirable shape by Chinese standards. Maybe all you really need is a super-hot center, and maybe a very thin piece of metal is so efficient that it works best for that purpose?

[slkinsey]

Could be due to a lot of things, not least an insufficient understanding of how heat works on the part of these cooks. But, of course, there are many things for which one may use a wok other than stir frying, and it may be that there are certain Chinese cooking techniques one can only do with a round bottomed wok. If one were to use a thin, round bottomed wok on a weak home burner, I can only see it working well if used for extremely small batches.

I'm no expert in Chinese cookery, but my observations in Chinese restaurant kitchens leads me to believe that the "center hotspot and cooler zones radiating out" idea isn't being practiced in restaurants, unless it is on a 1000:1 scale compared to home kitchens. So I suppose it might work just fine if you stir fry one piece of beef together with one piece of broccoli at a time. The problem is that most of us want to stir fry the same amount of food at home over our "bic lighter" burners as the restaurants do over their "nuclear fission" burners.

[JimHeard]

Thanks, Sam, for your helpful answers to my questions (and FiFi's addendum).

Thanks to everyone else who chimed in too.

[cake]

Hello, Sam, I am new here! I thoroughly enjoyed the class, very helpful.

I am ready to “upgrade” my cookware and would appreciate a little reassurance and hand-holding from an expert as I am only an amateur and cook just for fun (not for profit)!!

Here is what I have now, separated by what I am retiring (or have already gotten rid of) and what I plan to keep:

RETIRING (all of the following are Scanpan 2001+, which I’ve had for 12-14 years and which was great but is now no longer relevant to the way I cook)

• Fry pan—8 in—I found this to be too small

• Sauté pans--10 in, and 14 in

• Sauce pans-- 1 QT, 2 QT, and 3 QT

• Big pot w/two handles--6 QT

KEEPING

• Stockpot--8qt--Bourgeat SS w/aluminum disk on bottom (it was a gift!)

• Cast iron skillet, preseasoned--12 in, Lodge—I am new to cast iron, so am still leaning how to cook in it, but so far, I like it

• Blue Steel crepe pan, size?, French (no brand name)—a slightly seasoned hand-me down which I’ve just begun to use—great for crepes (thank goodness!) and I was shocked to find I can make a good omelet in this even though it isn’t non-stick

• Oval French Oven, Le Creuset (size? Big enough, LOL!)

NOT SURE YET

• One “try-me” special “Chef’s skillet” (looks like saucier) 9 in/2 qt, Calphalon One (the regular version, *not* the nonstick). This actually works pretty well, cleans easily and hasn’t warped, but based on what I’ve read upthread about the One line, I wish I hadn’t bought it.

• Calphalon Commercial (one of the “older” styles) butter warmer—does it’s job just fine, but is too small for warming milk (I love Chai tea) and is too light when empty (tips over toward handle if not perfectly balanced on gas grate), and it is UGLY, thus it really annoys me and I am looking for any excuse to replace it

I want to invest in high performance cookware that will last a long time. I want to be able to cook both everyday fare as well as more “fussy” dishes for entertaining (and impressing a future husband with my fabulous cooking skills, at least I hope so!) Also, I’d like something that is a little bit “forgiving” – if such a thing exists—that is to say, pots and pans that “respond” quickly so as to minimize and control the damage rather than magnify the error. Not that I plan to scorch things on purpose! Also, for starters especially, I want to get as much use out of a smaller number of items rather than have “a pan for every recipe” I prefer versatility and quality over sheer quantity.

Based on Sam’s recommendations and reading all the Q&As, here I what is on my list of things to buy:

1) 11” straight gauge copper Sauteuse Evasée. I am leaning towards Bourgeat since I really like the idea of a pouring lip. I would like to from others with more cooking experience than I—How much do you think a pouring lip really matters? Seeing as at least the flared (but non-curved) sauteuses are AKA a ”fait tout”, I have reasoned that a curved sided one should be no different based on what Sam has said. Thus my hope is that getting this pan first would allow me to delay the need for purchasing a separate fry pan for a while (to eventually replace the 8” one I’m retiring, as without it, the only fry pans I will have will be the cast iron and the crepe pan). In any event, I don’t want to replace the 8 inch fry pan with I have with a new one the same size as I find this to be kind of small.

2) I think I will need at least one “normal” (non-reducing) sauce pan. I honestly have no idea why I originally purchased so many ( 1, 2 and 3 QT) all those year ago. To replace them, I want to start with only ONE pot and think it should be Tall Saucepan so that I can heat up soup, blanch veggies, etc. Since I am limited the number of pieces, I need to maximize versatility both in terms of size and what the pan can do. Thus, I would like to know what you think about:

-Size/capacity

-Straight gauge vs. disk bottomed? (which ones give me more cooking options?)

-Preferred material for whichever construction you suggest

-Brands?

3) Smallish saucepan/butter warmer thingie? To melt butter, heat enough milk for one person, small amounts of sauce, whatever… Can the larger tall saucepan do this job? My worry is putting smaller amounts of liquid in a large diameter pan if I don’t want to reduce the liquid.) If I need a smaller saucepan/butter warmer, what should I get?

-Straight gauge is what you say is needed when the diameter of the pan is smaller than the burner diameter. I am not sure I understand why this is so?

-Given that straight gauge is your preference, which material/brand do you suggest for such a pan?

Thank you so much, I know this is kind of long! Any help you can offer on this would be most appreciated!

Regards,

Cindy

Edited February 10, 2005 by cake (log)

[slkinsey]

Based on Sam’s recommendations and reading all the Q&As, here I what is on my list of things to buy:

1) 11” straight gauge copper Sauteuse Evasée. I am leaning towards Bourgeat since I really like the idea of a pouring lip. I would like to from others with more cooking experience than I—How much do you think a pouring lip really matters?  Seeing as at least the flared (but non-curved) sauteuses are AKA a ”fait tout”, I have reasoned that a curved sided one should be no different based on what Sam has said. Thus my hope is that getting this pan first would allow me to delay the need for purchasing a separate fry pan for a while (to eventually replace the 8” one I’m retiring, as without it, the only fry pans I will have will be the cast iron and the crepe pan). In any event, I don’t want to replace the 8 inch fry pan with I have with a new one the same size as I find this to be kind of small.

Two things here:

1. I'd recommend you look at the curved sauteuse evasée rather than the straight sided one at this size. I think the curved design works better when you're looking for something that will function mostly as a souped-up sauté pan. This also allows you to go with the Falk pan instead of the Bourgeat pan, which us usually a fairly substantial savings. The rolled lip, IMO, does not make a significant difference in the usefulness of this kind of pan, but if it's important to you, it is worthy of note that Falk's curved sauteuse evasée does have a rolled lip.

2. I'm not sure a sauteuse evasée, whether curved or not, makes a good replacement for a fry pan. They have entirely different designs and entirely different uses. This, of course, assumes that you have been using your fry pans as fry pans and not mostly as sauté pans with sides that are too low and too curved.

2) I think I will need at least one “normal” (non-reducing) sauce pan. I honestly have no idea why I originally purchased so many ( 1, 2 and 3 QT) all those year ago. To replace them, I want to start with only ONE pot and think it should be Tall Saucepan so that I can heat up soup, blanch veggies, etc. Since I am limited the number of pieces, I need to maximize versatility both in terms of size and what the pan can do. Thus, I would like to know what you think about:

-Size/capacity

-Straight gauge vs. disk bottomed? (which ones give me more cooking options?)

-Preferred material for whichever construction you suggest

-Brands?

Disk bottom is the way to go for a tall sauce pan, with a heavy stainless body and a thick aluminum base. I think something like 4 - 4.5 quarts is a good size. I have this one and like it very much. No reason to get rid of your existing saucepans, though, unless they're taking up too much room. Scanpan is pretty decent stuff (I like their new Scanpan Steel line) and even the crappiest thin stainless pan is just fine for boiling water or steaming vegetables. Is the Scanpan 2001+ nonstick? That would be too bad, and a reason I'd think about getting rid of it.

3) Smallish saucepan/butter warmer thingie? To melt butter, heat enough milk for one person, small amounts of sauce, whatever… Can the larger tall saucepan do this job? My worry is putting smaller amounts of liquid in a large diameter pan if I don’t want to reduce the liquid.) If I need a smaller saucepan/butter warmer, what should I get?

No, you really don't want to be working with one quart of liquid in a 4.4 quart pan. So your instincts are right there. It all depends on how much you are willing to spend. Amazon often has deals on All-Clad pans. You could get this 1 quart All-Clad LTD saucepan for 30 bucks. Or, if you're willing to go through one of the Amazon resellers, you could get this 1 quart All-Clad Stainless saucepan for as little as 18 bucks. Or you could get something bigger, like this 2.5 quart Calphalon Commercial Hard-Anodized saucepan for $20. Most likely, one of these pans will be good enough for your uses. After that, it's a big jump up to the big boys. It'll run you $115 or so for a 1.6 quart saucepan or a 105 for a 1 quart sauteuse evasée from Falk.

-Straight gauge is what you say is needed when the diameter of the pan is smaller than the burner diameter. I am not sure I understand why this is so?

Perhaps this graphic will help explain:

Here we have two disk bottom designs and one straight gauge design. On the regular disk pan, as you can see, the layer of thermal material doesn't quite cover the entire bottom of the pan. The area where the stainless steel body curves up from the bottom of the pan to the sides of the pan is exposed. Now, normally this won't make much difference. All it means is that there is a small ring around the outside of the base that isn't quite as hot as the rest of the pan. No big deal -- it won't affect your cooking.

However, when the flame is bigger than the pan, heat comes directly from the flame onto the exposed curved stainless steel area. This means there is a small ring around the outside of the base that is a lot hotter than the rest of the pan. Not good. This can mean scorching.

The encapsulated disk pan attempts to solve this problem by making the disk as large as the diameter of the pan. As you can see, this leaves some voids underneath the curved part, and as a result these disks have to be encapsulated in a thin layer of stainless steel. There is still a a small ring around the outside of the base that isn't quite as hot as the rest of the pan, but because it protects the curved part, it eliminates the situation where there is a small ring around the outside of the base that is a lot hotter than the rest of the pan. This is a step up, but it is not without its troubles. If the flame is sufficiently large, it can travel up the thin sides of the pan to cause overheating and scorching there. In addition, encapsulated disk pans are significantly more expensive than regular disk pans.

The straight gauge pan, on the other hand, doesn't suffer from any of these problems. No matter how large the flame is, the heat is always coming into the pan through an even layer of thermal material. No hot spots, no scorching. Straight gauge pans tend to be more expensive, but since we're talking about small pans a reasonably priced one can usually be found.

-Given that straight gauge is your preference, which material/brand do you suggest for such a pan?

This is one of those "how much is it worth it to you" questions that only you can answer. To my mind, the All-Clad pans I referenced are cheap enough that there is no reason not to get one (I have several). For melting butter and warming milk (two things that I almost always do in the microwave anyway), there is no reason to spend any more money. Now, I also have a 1.3 quart stainless lined heavy copper sauteuse evasée which I use to do things like making intense reductions and delicate emulsified sauces, and very dark caramels. If you don't do this sort of thing, there probably is no reason to spend that kind of money.

[cake]

1. I'd recommend you look at the curved sauteuse evasée rather than the straight sided one at this size.

Oops, I forgot to put the word "Curved" in front of Sauteuse. I do indeed intend to buy this "saucier" shape as opposed to the flared-sided one.

I'm not sure a sauteuse evasée, whether curved or not, makes a good replacement for a fry pan.  They have entirely different designs and entirely different uses.  This, of course, assumes that you have been using your fry pans as fry pans and not mostly as sauté pans with sides that are too low and too curved..

I defintely saute in my saute pans, but now that I think about it, I realize I've also been frying in them too solely because food FITS in them, whereas my 8" fry pan is too small for most things. Though the higher sides of the saute pan were bugging me when I was frying! DUH!

So, I will get a copper fry pan.

What do you think would be most versatile size for a home kitchen?

Is the Scanpan 2001+ nonstick?  That would be too bad, and a reason I'd think about getting rid of it..

Yes, well, sort of...(read on for explanation). But this isn't the whole story as to why I am phasing them out.

I bought them in the early 1990's when low-fat high carb was still very "in", and I had been watching a lot of Graham Kerr on tv at that time (who had morphed from Galloping Gourmet--but not necessarily healthy--into "healthy gourmet" due to his wife's health issues) and he endorsed Scanpan.

Scanpan 2001+ wasn't nonstick al la Teflon-coated pans--they were not "super slick". So I didn't get the obnoxious "pooling" effect of the oil in the pan--it spread better than Teflon. The brochure inside the pans explained that the nonstick surface was inherent to the pan and not just a coating, and that with use the pan would develop a "seasoning" to it. This bore out as I was indeed able to use metal utensils in it with NO problems in the approximately 12-13 years I've owned them. What I found most remarkable about them, though, was that in addition to letting you cook with less fat than a regular pan ALSO let you develop a fond so you could deglaze. Now, I cannot say the deglazing ability on these pans is the same as on, say, stainless steel, but they were definitely better way better flavor-wise compared to the teflon style. And they cleaned up beautifully.

I am phasing them out b/c over a decade they were wearing out (loose handles, etc). Scanpan offers a lifetime guarantee and I sent my pans back. To my amazement, they were replaced with brand new pans in only a few weeks, with NO hassle.

The new pans were called Scanpan New Tech--which was what they renamed the line after Y2K came and went. They also supposedly had new technology and had "upgraded" the non-stick ability.

The replacement pans were great at first, but soon the saucepans and 6 Qt pot in particular started to blister on their interiors. (So far the saute and fry pans are problem free, but I am not holding my breath!) Oh well, so much for the new pans.

When I spoke to the company rep she said I must have gotten a bad batch, she was extremely apologetic and polite, and sent me a prepaid shipping label this time (they usually don't pan for return of items for warranty service), so I can once again return the pans and get replacements. However, my fear is that there is a difference of manfucaturing or chemical/physical properties between the 2001+ and New Tech which accounts for the blistering of the new product, (I have read some reviews from other users of the New Tech that indicate I am not the only one who has experienced this problem, thus causing me to question whether it was true that I got a bad batch, but really what I think it is more likely is that the New Tech has some performance issues... I am concerned that if I return the pans, their replacements too will have the same problems. It is just too much of a hassle for me as I cannot return ALL of my pots and pans at once (or I will have very little to cook with.)

And, to be honest, I've always wanted copper cookware, so I figured now is a good time to switch.

I do want to stress that Scanpan's customer service has been outstanding throughout this process. I have never tried any of their other cookware but if I could "exchange" my cookware for the stainless steel line, I would do so, but alas, that is not they way the replacement guarantee works--it has to be the same product.

Anyway, enough about Scanpan, I digress. Thank you for explaining about disk-bottom vs. straight gauge on smaller-than-the flame diameter pans. This makes a lot of sense.

I can't wait to start shopping!

Thank you so much for all of this terrific information!

Best,

Cindy

[cake]

I think I will need at least one “normal” (non-reducing) sauce pan...so that I can heat up soup, blanch veggies, etc.

Sam,

Thank you for the link to the Paderno saucepan, it looks good and the price is nice. My one concern is...would there ever be a cooking/technique reason to have a Tall Saucepan of straight gauge construction rather than disk-bottom? (Since I am planning to only start with ONE pan--as I have already gotten rid of the 1, 2 and 3 QT saucepans I mentioned upthread, I want to maximize versatility of cooking tasks of the new pot). I just want to be sure I am not missing anything in my logic before I start purchasing.

Thanks again for all this terrific info. I wish I had known this stuff years ago!

~Cindy

[slkinsey]

So, I will get a copper fry pan.

What do you think would be most versatile size for a home kitchen?

Eleven inches.

Thank you for the link to the Paderno saucepan, it looks good and the price is nice. My one concern is...would there ever be a cooking/technique reason to have a Tall Saucepan of straight gauge construction rather than disk-bottom?

Sure. If you were planning on, for example, making four and a half quarts of Hollandaise all at once. Or if you were cooking over an open fire. Other than things like that... not really.

The tall saucepan is for things like warming/reheating sauces, soups, stews and other liquids in situations where additional reduction is not desired and as as a general-purpose pan for blanching/steaming vegetables, reheating liquids, etc. None of these things need a straight gauge design.

[slkinsey]

I've heard over and over again from experienced Chinese cooks that, even on a home range with a weak burner, a very thin wok performs better than a thick one.

Although I'm still not an expert on wok cooking, I thought I'd return to this subject a bit. This week's NY Times food section features an article entitled The Well-Tempered Wok by Julia Moskin. Here are some excerpts that I thought were salient to our discussion here:

Cookware centers . . . carry both the ancient forms of the wok - southern Chinese cast iron ones with two handles, northern Chinese carbon steel ones with one hollow handle.

This is interesting, because apparently cast iron is a traditional wok material. Also, carbon steel, the other traditional material, has an even higher specific heat per cubic centimeter than iron (3.78 versus 3.53 W/cm^3 K). This means a greater heat capacity, but the poor thermal conductivity also means that the wok to be preheated for a long time before the heat evens out and the whole wok is at the correct temperature.

Missteps that prevent us from achieving wok hay, Ms. Young said, include crowding too much food into the wok, using ingredients that are damp instead of dry, and adding the oil before the wok is heated through. But, she said, "the single most common mistake made in cooking Chinese food on a Western stove is using a wok that is not hot enough."

[JimHeard]

Dear Sam:

Thanks again for the very helpful discussion of the Falk 11" saucier and the alternatives. I recently received the Falk pan, and really DO understand what all the fuss was about. I used it to make risotto last weekend, and the cooking was almost as much fun as the eating. The shape is perfect for the continual stirring, the pan is incredibly responsive, and it was simply a delight to use.

As you suggested, I saved $80 or so by not buying the lid, and was delighted to find that the lid for my 11" Sitram Prof. saute pan fits it perfectly! That lid, for folks who are so inclined, sells at Bridge Kitchenware for about $16.

I do have one question about the Falk. Given its weight, when sauteing, I tend to slide it back and forth across my stove grates, which are heavy cast iron. As copper is softer than iron, I have wondered if sliding the pan over the slightly rough cast iron will over time cause any problem with the pan. So far, I have noticed that it causes tiny scratch marks on the bottom of the pan, but have assumed that they will not affect the performance. I just wonder if long-term, I may expect more than tiny scratch marks?

Finally, thanks also for tipping us off to Sitram. I had never heard of it before reading your discussion, and am now the proud and happy owner of several excellent pieces of Sitram Profiserie cookware. For the many uses where a disk-bottom pan is a good choice, I would recommend it to others without hesitation.

Jim Heard

[slkinsey]

Hey Jim! Glad you like the Falk and Sitram.

I slide my heavy copper as well. In fact, it's a necessary part of sauteing. I don't think the scratches on the bottom will make a big difference over the life of the pan with normal home use. Maybe in a restaurant it would wear out the pan in 15 years. Maybe.

[JimHeard]

Hey Jim!  Glad you like the Falk and Sitram.

I slide my heavy copper as well.  In fact, it's a necessary part of sauteing.  I don't think the scratches on the bottom will make a big difference over the life of the pan with normal home use.  Maybe in a restaurant it would wear out the pan in 15 years.  Maybe.

←

Thanks, Sam. Just what I needed to know.

[emmalish]

I hope it's ok to repost this here. It's already posted in the best non-stick thread, but after five days with no bites, I thought I'd give this a shot.

Do you know anything about or have any experience with the Cuisinart Chef's Classic Non-Stick Hard Anodized cookware?

I just found it this week at one of my local stores, and it's pretty nice-looking cookware. According to the package, it's a hard-anodized exterior with "Quantanium" non-stick interior (titanium reinforced). I checked Cuisinart's website, and while they don't have it listed in their cookware product directory, they do have it listed in their cookware selection guide (with not a lot of information about the line itself).

Cuisinart lists it at 50 microns thick. I googled and found a description at another site that lists a 3mm thickness. (same thing?)

The store just got it in and it's already marked clearance. They had an 8" skillet for $24 Cdn (which is probably about $2 US, so how can you go wrong?). They also had a 10-piece set for $199 Cdn. Amazon has a 7-piece set listed as 62% off. To me it sounds like it's an old line that's being discontinued. But I asked them at the store and they said they were under the impression that it was a new line that Cuisinart was trying to get out there with a special promotion.

Well at $24 I had to pick up the skillet. I used it the other day and was pretty impressed with its performance (nothing fancy, just pan-fried potatoes). It heated up quickly, retained heat well, and it seemed to have pretty even heating. The handle stayed cool, and was comfortable to hold.

The cookware I already have is a mix of several lines, with the basic pieces being Berndes, which I've been happy with for the past 7 years or so except for the fact that it's only oven-safe at lower temperatures (because of the non-metal handles). So I started thinking... it's only $199 for a full set, which includes 8" and 10" skillets, 1.5 qt and 3 qt saucepans with lids, a 3.5 qt sauté pan with helper handle and cover, and an 8 qt stockpot with cover (pic). At that price I can justify replacing a good portion of my existing cookware (only Berndes pieces would be replaced). I guess the question is do you think it would be an upgrade?

Whaddaya think?

Edited February 26, 2005 by emmalish (log)

[emmalish]

I have one Calphalon pan and one old Cuisinart pan... I always get which is which mixed up too!

Well, I went back up today and they were down to their last set, so I bit the bullet. Hey, it's only $199 right? I'd still like to hear opinions though. Don't be afraid to tell me I just wasted my money!

[Safran]

I have one Calphalon pan and one old Cuisinart pan... I always get which is which mixed up too!

Well, I went back up today and they were down to their last set, so I bit the bullet. Hey, it's only $199 right? I'd still like to hear opinions though. Don't be afraid to tell me I just wasted my money! 

←

emmalish, cookware is, up to a certain point, subjective.... You bought it, so get to know it - how fast it heats up, etc, and cook away!

Edited February 26, 2005 by Safran (log)

[slkinsey]

Do you know anything about or have any experience with the Cuisinart Chef's Classic Non-Stick Hard Anodized cookware?

No direct experience, but the principles tend to be the same.

Cuisinart lists it at 50 microns thick. I googled and found a description at another site that lists a 3mm thickness. (same thing?)

A micron (aka micrometer) is 1/1,000,000th of a meter, so 50 microns is equal to 0.05 millimeters. This undoubtedly describes the thickness of the anodized layer. The 3 mm figure would appear to describe the total thickness of the cookware. This is okay, but nothing to write home about. Similar to Calphalon.

The store just got it in and it's already marked clearance. They had an 8" skillet for $24 Cdn (which is probably about $2 US, so how can you go wrong?). They also had a 10-piece set for $199 Cdn. Amazon has a 7-piece set listed as 62% off.

For $24 Cnd you can hardly go wrong with the fry pan. Fry pans are the only pans that I think are worth getting with a nonstick coating. I don't think there are any positives to having nonstick in a saucepan or stockpot, and some negatives (namely the coating eventually wearing out). If you want to improve your cookware, I think you're better off buying it piece by piece over time as you need it. This way you can buy better (which usually means more expensive) stuff from different manufacturers that best suits your cooking practices and needs. I've never known someone to be entirely happy with a preconfigured set. On the other hand, as you say... it is hard to go wrong for $200 Cdn.

[emmalish]

I've never known someone to be entirely happy with a preconfigured set.  On the other hand, as you say... it is hard to go wrong for $200 Cdn.

←

Thanks! Yeah, buying a preconfigured set was certainly not my first choice. But even if I only get a couple pieces out of it that I like, I still figure $199's a pretty good deal.

[andiesenji]

I have one Calphalon pan and one old Cuisinart pan... I always get which is which mixed up too!

Well, I went back up today and they were down to their last set, so I bit the bullet. Hey, it's only $199 right? I'd still like to hear opinions though. Don't be afraid to tell me I just wasted my money! 

←

If the cookware works for you, be happy. Not everyone is obcessed with having the be-all and end-all of cooking and many, many, many cooks will happily cook their entire lives without ever touching a top-of-the-line piece of cookware and do an excellent job.

There are certain situations where a particular piece of cookware makes a particular task easier, but unless you are doing this many times a day, day after day, there is no reason to opt for that.

I have known fantastic cooks who produce amazing meals with plain old Wearever cookware and wouldn't know what to do with a piece of All-Clad if it were given to them.

I gave a bunch of old cookware to a neighbor, soon after I moved up here and bought new stuff and she is still using it, 16 years later and loves it.

I also am using some cast iron skillets and other pieces that are nearing the century mark and they still do a great job. Figuring what they cost when new, they have outperformed any modern cookware for minute fractions of a penny.

Enjoy your set, I think you did very well indeed!

Edited February 27, 2005 by andiesenji (log)