Q&A -- Understanding Stovetop Cookware

[Kleatius]

That is correct, it only has one handle.  I haven't found it difficult to lift, but some people do.  I have strong forearms.  I find that the handle design also aids in lifting the pot -- you grip the handle close to the body of the pan and anchor the length of the handle along your arm.

←

I'm sure I wouldn't have problems with the pot either. My 5 ft 95 lb gf might struggle though...

For a fry pan, I'd say you want straight gauge and not disk bottom. You also want something with short flared sides. A lot of frypans I find have sides that are too tall and too steep, making them more like curved saute pans.

Sorry, I'm sure you've already mentioned the reasoning behind this, but why wouldn't you want a disk bottom fry pan? If you've got a nice saucier for wet/dry applications and are just using the fry pan for browning and whatnot I don't see what the problem would be with a disk.

Edited May 6, 2008 by Kleatius (log)

[slkinsey]

For a fry pan, I'd say you want straight gauge and not disk bottom. You also want something with short flared sides. A lot of frypans I find have sides that are too tall and too steep, making them more like curved saute pans.

Sorry, I'm sure you've already mentioned the reasoning behind this, but why wouldn't you want a disk bottom fry pan? If you've got a nice saucier for wet/dry applications and are just using the fry pan for browning and whatnot I don't see what the problem would be with a disk.

Just like I said: "A lot of frypans I find have sides that are too tall and too steep, making them more like curved saute pans." As I point out in the article, you want short flared sides in a frypan, because this aids in the evaporation of steam and thus facilitates crisping of the food surfaces.

In addition, most disk-bottom designs do not have a base that extends all the way to the edge. Since frying involves letting foods sit still in the pan (as opposed to the constant movement of sauteing), you do not want a situation where part of the food item is over the disk and part of it is not. Since you would like to maximize your cooking surface in a frypan, straight gauge makes the most sense.

[tim]

In addition, most disk-bottom designs do not have a base that extends all the way to the edge.  Since frying involves letting foods sit still in the pan (as opposed to the constant movement of sauteing), you do not want a situation where part of the food item is over the disk and part of it is not.  Since you would like to maximize your cooking surface in a frypan, straight gauge makes the most sense.

←

Hi,

Sam is correct. There are problems with disc bottomed frypans with any cooktop.

On a gas burner: The food over the disc receives even heat. If you have a small frypan and a large burner, the food just outside the edge of the burner is exposed to very high heat.

On an electric cooktop: The food over the disc receives even heat. The food outside of the disc receives very little heat.

Tim

[Kleatius]

Thanks for the response. Makes sense now why you'd want straight gauge for a fry pan. It doesn't seems like there are many available of that style that are that great. The thick copper base styles don't seem affordable. All-Clad is also fairly expensive especially for the thickness of aluminum used. Anyone know a good manufacturer of straight gauge cookware with fairly thick metal?

[Kleatius]

There is a sale on Viking cookware at a local store, so I checked out the thickness of the aluminum used. Turns out the "7-ply" pots contains 2.8-3 mm of aluminum. It was funny cause when I first asked the service rep how thick the aluminum was in the pot she responded with "7-ply thickness". She had no idea about the actual thickness and said that "no one had ever asked her that before."

While the sale here means relatively good prices for this line I'm gonna pass cause it's still way too pricey for 3 mm aluminum thickness.

Edited May 6, 2008 by Kleatius (log)

[slkinsey]

Why not extra heavy carbon steel?

[tim]

Thanks for the response.  Makes sense now why you'd want straight gauge for a fry pan.  It doesn't seems like there are many available of that style that are that great.  The thick copper base styles don't seem affordable.  All-Clad is also fairly expensive especially for the thickness of aluminum used.  Anyone know a good manufacturer of straight gauge cookware with fairly thick metal?

←

Kleatius,

There are a number of options in tri-ply cookware that are much less expensive than All-Clad. (The Viking is much more expensive.)

You should look at the fully clad cookware offered by the following lines: Gourmet Standard Tri-Ply, Calphalon Tri-Ply Stainless, Cuisinart Multiclad Pro Stainless, LeCreuset

Stainless.

You might also run to your local Sear's store. They may have the Kenmore 8 pc. Stainless Tri-Ply set at an incredibly low price. This set is not currently available on line.

There are other options, but these sets are well made and have pouring lips.

Good luck,

Tim

Tim

[Kleatius]

Why not extra heavy carbon steel?

←

Carbon steel cookware does look like awesome stuff for a fry pan. I'll keep a look out for one I guess. I've never seen one in stores or on any of the online sites I've found that ship to Canada. Woks yes, but no fry pans that I can remember. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention...

[dmickley]

Hi there, Sam -

First and foremost, thanks for your writing - which you allege to be overly lengthy, and I will counter with comprehensive and cohesive - in this thread. You've taken on a Sisyphean task in instructing troglodytes like myself in the fine points of cookware, and I hope I'm asking this before you have followed the path of other luminaries and sunk into a dark depression, a darker cave, or a show on the Food Network.

I have questions for you. Let me try to give you some background, while immediately acknowledging and apologizing my own (actual) overly lengthy florid writing: I'm a college student who just graduated - let's see - six days ago, and has since experienced the stunningly prompt transformation from triumphant graduate to unemployed homebody. Life is cruel.

That said, I have decided to get deeply involved in cooking, both as an invaluable skill for myself, and another means of curtailing favor with my parents, my girlfriend, my girlfriends' parents, and any other potential people who will house and/or support me in the near and distant future. I'm the type of person who really dives into an interest or hobby - and so my last couple weeks have been spent pouring over cooking sites like EGullet and Chowhound, reading Bittman's column on NYT.com, watching Top Chef, etc. I may be the most informed cook in history who has never really actually - you know - cooked.

This thread has convinced me of the merits of copper cookware. I'm on board with you - it's the best. But perhaps it's the best for the true EGulleteers, the culinary adventurers and the people who have the taste to discern between shades of roux sauces and hollandaise. Meanwhile, I struggle with meatloaf, and buy my pie crusts from Whole Foods.

I feel like copper, with the polishing and the general complexity, might be too much for me. Right now, I have the most sincere of intentions to hand-wash my pans everytime I cook, and carefully place them amidst a bed of cushions. But in reality, I'll probably want to dishwash them, and be less than delicate, eventually. So I was thinking about buying stainless covered aluminum, maybe with a copper core.

Anyway, reining in the floridity - I have some money lying around, and I also happen to have an "in" with a restaurant wholesaler, so I'm looking at about 50% off list price for the majority of the pieces I'm interested in, which makes life easier. I have access to All-Clad, some Sitram, and Demeyere. I'm thinking Demeyere's Atlantis line. Having gone to Sur la Table and handled it, I like the handles, and I hate All-Clad's handles. And it's quite shiny, and, hamster-like, I am pleasantly entranced by shiny things.

What I'm not certain about is which pieces are the most wide-ranging kitchen tools - my ideal is to construct a minimalist kitchen, but of the utmost quality - and I'm questioning why I should even bother buying a skillet (sacrilege, I know!) instead of a saute pan, a dutch oven, a cast iron skillet, saucier (perhaps both the 1.6 and 3.5 Atlantis sauciers?), some cheap sauce pots, and a plethora of shiny kitchen tools. So:

1. Why buy the 11" skillet over the 11" saute pan? What purposes can the skillet serve over the saute pan? (Assuming both Demeyere atlantis, which, I think, has smaller sides so I could still crisp well? I'll look the diameters up for you if needbe) Or, if there is a crisping issue with the saute, when would I use my 11" skillet over the cast iron? Or are there some other functions that I'm not considering?

2. Am I making a boneheaded mistake with the Demeyere? I know it's ludicrously expensive, but I've managed to avoid that with the 50% cut - so is it really the best quality for my buck?

3. Am I wrong about copper?

I know that there's a huge amount of overlap to pans, and it's tough for me, as someone who is somewhat perfectionistic in nature, to be reasonable and wing it with a few Target pans and see how they hold up. I'd like to have that initial psychological pleasure and investment in my cookware that I got the best, and what's right for me. So I'd love your thoughts on any of this. Meanwhile, I hope to progress as a chef - I got Pepin's Technique, and Cook's Illustrated Best New Recipe, and Bittman's huge tome - but I want to have my cookware and start building that bond. And make some nice meatloaf. Oops - this message has reached Tolstoyian length, so I'll cut it 'short' for now.

Thanks so much.

Edited May 23, 2008 by dmickley (log)

[slkinsey]

Thanks for your nice thoughts.

1. Why buy the 11" skillet over the 11" saute pan? What purposes can the skillet serve over the saute pan? (Assuming both Demeyere atlantis, which, I think, has smaller sides so I could still crisp well? I'll look the diameters up for you if needbe) Or, if there is a crisping issue with the saute, when would I use my 11" skillet over the cast iron? Or are there some other functions that I'm not considering?

Have you ever tried to fry an egg in a sauté pan?

The main advantage of a frypan is the low, sloping sides. This makes it easy to get in there with a spatula for things, which is especially important for things that are delicate (trout fillets, for example), and also facilitates crisping. You can fry crisp and have room to turn in a sauté pan, if you put one piece in the center and give it plenty of room, but it's difficult and not optimal. Meanwhile, what is your projected use for the sauté pan?

One piece of cookware I've seen that most people want to have is a large, heavy duty nonstick frypan. If you have access to restaurant suppliers, you can probably get some thick Vollrath or Lincoln frypans (12" is a good size) with a durable nonstick coating for not too much money. If you don't think this access will last forever, buy four or five of them and store the extra ones, because eventually the coating will wear off. If you like making eggs, you might think about an 8-inch nonstick frypan as well.

I'm not crazy about the design of the Demeyere frypans. The sides seem too tall and too vertical for my taste.

2. Am I making a boneheaded mistake with the Demeyere? I know it's ludicrously expensive, but I've managed to avoid that with the 50% cut - so is it really the best quality for my buck?

Demeyere is the best fully-clad cookware, IMO, so long as money is not an object. If you can get 50% off, it seems like a very good choice.

3. Am I wrong about copper?

Wrong about what? Copper has advantages. Other materials have other advantages. It all depends on your priorities (and budget, of course).

What I'm not quite clear on is your projected use for these pans. If you read through this thread you'll see that one of my recurring themes is that I discourage people from buying a lot of fancy expensive cookware based on some notion of putting together a "complete battery of cookware." What do you think you'll cook with this stuff? Why don't you have a stockpot with a fitted strainer for pasta? Why do you want expensive Demeyere sauciers? (It's not clear what pans you're talking about, by the way. Demeyere doesn't make anything called a "saucier.") These are all questions I'd ask myself.

[jeremyn]

I've been following this thread for a while and have a couple of questions.

Where can one find lids for Falk copper pieces? I'd like to find some high-quality, heavy stainless lids that really fit well. Is there a go-to source that has the proper size or do you just need to bring your pans to cookware stores and hunt around until you find something?

Do we have any estimates on the composition of All-Clad's copper core line? Their website seems to indicate that the copper core is sandwiched between a layer of aluminum, which could further improve the performance. Do we know just how thick the copper and aluminum layers are? Alternatively, can someone compare the thermal performance (capacity, responsiveness) of the All-Clad Copper Core and Master Chef/LTD lines?

[slkinsey]

Where can one find lids for Falk copper pieces?  I'd like to find some high-quality, heavy stainless lids that really fit well.

I find that the Paderno lids fit Falk pans nicely. But, really, I've found most any appropriately-sized lid to work just fine.

Do we have any estimates on the composition of All-Clad's copper core line?  Their website seems to indicate that the copper core is sandwiched between a layer of aluminum, which could further improve the performance.  Do we know just how thick the copper and aluminum layers are?  Alternatively, can someone compare the thermal performance (capacity, responsiveness) of the All-Clad Copper Core and Master Chef/LTD lines?

No data on the layers in Copper Core cookware. All-Clad used to be willing to tell people the thickness of their various layers, but they clammed up right around the same time they started making their stuff thinner. You may draw your own conclusions. If anyone feels like running a piece of Copper Core through a band saw to take a look at the layers, let me know. I always assumed that's what I'd have to do if I ever wanted to write a book on this subject.

[jeremyn]

While investigating the question of the copper thickness in All-Clad's copper core line, I came across a picture on the All-Clad website that indicates that the interior copper layer is visible on the cookware rims:

Copper Core interior

I'm guessing that this is the true interior thickness. Manufacturing a pan with a varying thickness of interior materials seems like it would not be worth the extra cost (especially if the sole purpose is to INCREASE the visible copper layer at the rim, where it will not be of any thermal benefit).

I don't own any copper core cookware items. Would anyone who owns one of these pieces be willing to give an approximate measurement?

Do you think that this is just a trick, and that the inner copper core is thinner than this visible strip?

[slkinsey]

Ideally you'd want someone with a micrometer to measure the thickness at the lip and also take a high resolution picture. Then you'd have some basis for blowing up the picture and figuring out the thicknesses of the various layers.

[tim]

Hi,

The Copper Core pans are 0.075" (1.905mm) thick, measured on my micrometer.

I am confused about the thickness of the interior and exterior linings. We know that Falk uses an interior lining that is 0.008" (0.02mm) thick. I remember reading that the stainless interior/exterior linings on All-Clad pans is approximately 0.0175" (0.045mm) thick. I cannot imagine that the linings (.00175" X 2 = 0.035") would account for almost half of the Copper Core's total thickness. Let's assume that the linings total 0.016".

At this point we know that the assumed remaining thickness (0.075" - 0.016" = 0.060") totals about 1.52mm, quite a bit less than the professional standard of 2.5mm.

Assume that the remaining thickness (0.075" - 0.016" = 0.060") includes three layers with 60% being copper. That would indicate a copper layer that is only 0.035" (0.089mm) thick.

We can verify these calculations by weighing and measuring a Copper Core pan and same pan in All-Clad Stainless. If the pans measure exactly, the difference in weight will be due to the volume of copper. With the measurements, we can easily calculate the area of the copper layer and inpute the volume of copper in inches or milimeters.

Any volunteers with two pans?

Tim

Edited May 29, 2008 by tim (log)

[slkinsey]

Tim, do you mean "Copper Core" or "Cop-R-Chef"? There is no such line as "Cop-R-Core."

I don't think that weighing Copper Core and Stainless pans would provide any meaningful result, because the pans are different designs with different detailing and hardware. We're also making too many assumptions as to the relative weight and thickness of the stainless cladding.

Assuming that the edge detail shows all the layers, it ought to be able to take a high resolution picture and calculate the layer thicknesses from a scaled blowup of the picture.

[jeremyn]

I agree. A high-res photo of the lip would be the best. Can somebody who owns a copper core piece take a picture?

If we're only starting with 1.9mm (are they really that thin!?!?), we're not going to end up with much.

My dilemma is that I really like the design of certain All-Clad Copper core pieces (for example, the 12" fry pan with side handle). However, I'm reluctant to buy one if I'm going to sacrifice TOO MUCH performance over, say, a Falk or Mauviel piece with a lot more copper. 2.3mm of copper vs 1.7 and I might be able to deal with it...

[tim]

Tim, do you mean "Copper Core" or "Cop-R-Chef"?  There is no such line as "Cop-R-Core."

I don't think that weighing Copper Core and Stainless pans would provide any meaningful result, because the pans are different designs with different detailing and hardware.  We're also making too many assumptions as to the relative weight and thickness of the stainless cladding.

Assuming that the edge detail shows all the layers, it ought to be able to take a high resolution picture and calculate the layer thicknesses from a scaled blowup of the picture.

←

Sam,

Sorry, I measured the Copper Core pans.

My idea on weight is predicated on two pans with very close measurements. The hardwear differences, handle weight, can be estimated. The detailing difference, pouring lip can me measured.

This is not rocket science. We are trying to estimate the weight differential in a layer of metals with an area that may be estimated within reason. This will allow for a reasonable verification of results from a blow up of a picture.

Tim

[slkinsey]

IMO, there are simply too many "guestimates" involved in making the weight calculation (e.g., that the stainless cladding is the same thickness on both the Copper Core and the Stainless lines, that we know that thickness, that the handles and other hardware weigh the same on the two lines, that the pan dimensions and amounts of material used are the same on the two lines, etc.) to make it particularly useful. If any one of the several assumptions turns out to be incorrect, it throws off the whole calculation. Let's say that we determine thicknesses based on the blowup of a high resolution picture and that these results are not confirmed by the weight calculations. Should we suppose that the weight calculation is incorrect or that the visual measurements are incorrect? Or both?

If we assume that the metals visible at the lip are representative of the various metal thicknesses -- which is a more secure assumption than the assumption that the stainless steel cladding and handles weigh exactly the same and that Copper Core and Stainless pieces have the exact same dimensions -- the most reliable and accurate way of measuring them would seem to be using a high resolution photo that includes a reliable visual reference for scale (which in this case could be the micrometer measurement of the thickness). Ideally one would saw the pan in half and measure at the base, in case the metals shown at the lip are not representative. But without that possibility, a high resolution photograph should be the most accurate way.

(Fixed typos)

Edited May 30, 2008 by slkinsey (log)

[jeremyn]

I agree... the handles are shaped differently, the exterior styling is different, etc. All of these little things will have more of an effect on the weight than a difference in density between aluminum and copper over a 1-2mm thick surface.

I do think that the blow up image would provide a reasonable guess (though not perfect).

[Dave the Cook]

I happened to be in a cookware store with my camera today. The staff was occupied with a freezer breakdown, so they didn't notice me using a Staub French oven as a tripod to catch the lip of an All-Clad Copper Core saute pan. Anyway, maybe these will be helpful:

Can someone else do the geometry?

[jeremyn]

Just from eyeballing it, it looks like the copper layer is about 50-60% of the total thickness. If the total thickness is 1.9mm, there's about 1mm of copper. Can someone confirm that the total pan thickness is only 1.9mm? That seems really thin to me, but I don't own any copper core pieces.

[Marlene]

All my pots are All Clad Copper Core, but I probably won't take pictures or measure them. I don't really care what the thickness is etc. All I know is that they I like how they perform, and I'm happy with them.

Edited June 2, 2008 by Marlene (log)

[slkinsey]

Nice, Dave!

Ideally we'd want a photograph with better lighting and higher resolution, but these definitely provide the basis for getting into the ballpark. From what I can see, I'd say that the copper layer is around 0.89 mm, the aluminum layers are around 0.17 mm (assuming that they are the same thickness -- the bottom layer is not easy to see in the picture) and stainless layers are around 0.335 mm).

[tim]

Sam,

I now clearly recognize that your idea of measuring from a picture is clearly the best way to achieve accuracy in these measurements. If you compare our measurments, you will realize that I suffer from a wondering decimal problems. After correcting my math, we agree that the pans are 1.905mm thick and the copper layer is 0.89mm thick.

From what I can see, I'd say that the copper layer is around 0.89 mm, the aluminum layers are around 0.17 mm (assuming that they are the same thickness -- the bottom layer is not easy to see in the picture) and stainless layers are around 0.335 mm).

←

Assume that the remaining thickness (0.075" - 0.016" = 0.060") includes three layers with 60% being copper. That would indicate a copper layer that is only 0.035" (0.089mm) thick.

I completely agree with your statement that the bottom layer is not easy to see. I blew up both pictures by 400% and measured both on the screen and compared the percentages of each layer to the total thickness.

Measuring the blow up of the pictures hints that the linings may be the same thickness as on Falk's cookware, .20 mm. I also think the outer layer of aluminum/stainless may be thinner than the inner layers.

Tim