Q&A -- Understanding Stovetop Cookware

[slkinsey]

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. Just kept forgetting about it, so...

I want to replace the 3.5 qt. saucepan I use for everything from boiling water for vegetables and pasta (obviously not too demanding) to making small amounts of soup and larger amounts of sauces. My plan right now is to get a normal stainless-sided saucepan with an aluminum or copper base, which should be fine for everything but the more delicate sauces, and then, sometime down the line, get a larger copper saucière for making larger amounts of such sauces. Does this sound like a good plan, or would there be any significant value to getting a fully-clad saucepan like one made by Falk or a sale-priced All-Clad LTD for my purposes?

I think you're right to get a disk bottom pan in this size. In fact, you may find that you never make so much sauce that you require a fully clad pan in this size.

Just one thing to mention... a 3.5 quart pan is way too small for boiling pasta.

Assuming I do get a SS pan, what value, if any, would the Stiram Catering's copper base provide me with in my case, as opposed to a Professierie one or a Paderno?

In my opinion, and understanding your probable use... probably no advantage to having a copper base.

[gkg680]

Good Day, All-

I have a few comments and questions about cookware for Sam and Boris and anyone else who might care to comment.

The Mauviel commercial-grade copper saute pan I bought recently, 28 cm in diameter (11 inches), which has a stated capacity of 4.6 liters, but which measures out closer to 5 liters (5.5 quarts), is a joy to cook with, and the vertical sides, which are higher than American saute pans have, seem to add versatility and ease of use.

However, the saute pan, though very, very heavy to lift, is still not extremely large, in terms of cooking volume. I don't think I'd find a smaller one as useful in the 9.5 inch diameter, let alone 8 inch.

Recently, I stopped into a Sur La Table store, here in Chicago. Sur La Table is a yuppie store with high prices, and they carry Mauviel. They now have in stock a couple of Mauviel curved sauteuse evasee pans, the larger being 9.5 inches in diameter.

I can see how versatile this pan is, but the 9.5 inch diameter seemed small. I would think that the 11 inch diameter pan, made only by Bourgeat and Falk, as Sam Kinsey mentioned in a post some weeks ago, would be the only sensible choice, given that most of us would have a much smaller pan, perhaps 1 quart or 1.4 or 1.8 liter, something like that, for reducing sauces.

Also, Sur La Table, the Chicago store, anyway, now has a few 30 cm frypans (12 inches). This size is, of course, wider, and just as important, deeper, than the next smaller 24 cm (10 inch?) Mauviel frypan. I'd be far more inclined to buy and experiment with the larger frypan.

Any comments? Boris, you mentioned recently buying smaller Mauviel saute pans. Am I paying too much attention to size here? The 9.5 inch Mauviel saute pan seems like it would accomodate two pieces of meat or fish, with not much room to spare, but I can't imagine that pan holding enough pasta, with sauce, for two hungry people.

Any thoughts? I welcome your comments, because a stitch in time always saves nine. My Calphalon wok and 12 inch saute pans have been gathering dust for years because I bought them without knowing all the facts, and I always welcome comments from professionals who can caution me ahead of time.

By the way, separate and apart from cooking specifications, these copper commercial-grade pans are beautiful, and their striking appearance, alone, is exciting. I can't imagine anyone regretting ownership of one or two.

Best wishes to all.

Greg in Chicago.

[chopin]

slkinsey et al,

Being a new cook ready to spend some money on cookware since I really don't have much (I ahve read Slkinseey's truly outstanding lecure on equipment), I have a question about the recommendation for getting:

1 qt. to 1.5 qt straight gauge saucepan, sauteuse evasee or curved sauteuse evasee (Amazon has a 1 qt. All-Clad MasterChef sauteuse evasee -- they call it a saucier -- for 35 bucks)

- 3.5 to 4.5 disk bottom tall saucepan (Bridge Kitchenware has a 4.5 qt. Paderno Grand Gourmet tall saucepan for 78 bucks)

Based on your recommendation, I plan to get the 11" straight gauge curved sauteuse evasee ( masterchef 5 1/2 qt Saucier since I don't want copper at the beginning). However,a fter reading the flexibility of the saueuse evasee for heating up sauces as well as reductions, would it not be more logicical to get:

1 or 2 quart sauteuse evasee AND a 3 to 4 quart sauteuse evasee in addition to the 5 1/2 qt saucier due to the flexibility of the sauteuse over the sauce pan. In other words, why buy a sauce pan in any size when you can get a similar sized sautuese evasee which would allow for maximum cooking utility? Am I being too simplistic with this reasoning?

Chopin

[slkinsey]

Recently, I stopped into a Sur La Table store, here in Chicago.  Sur La Table is a yuppie store with high prices, and they carry Mauviel.  They now have in stock a couple of Mauviel curved sauteuse evasee pans, the larger being 9.5 inches in diameter.

    I can see how versatile this pan is, but the 9.5 inch diameter seemed small.  I would think that the 11 inch diameter pan, made only by Bourgeat and Falk, as Sam Kinsey mentioned in a post some weeks ago, would be the only sensible choice, given that most of us would have a much smaller pan, perhaps 1 quart or 1.4 or 1.8 liter, something like that, for reducing sauces.

A few things here:

I definitely find that an 11" saute pan is the smallest useful size, unless one is cooking very small amounts of food. A 9.5" saute might be more useful in a restaurant where portions are typically prepared for only one person at a time. But in the home, I think it's a mistake to get anything smaller than 11 inches (in fact, for those with a regular domestic stove I think it's 11 inches or nothing, as these stoves are really too weak to heat a larger saute pan properly unless you get a thick bottom pad and massively preheat).

The thing to consider when looking at a curved or straight sauteuse evasee is that the diameter measurement is for the top of the pan, not the bottom. An 11 inch curved sauteuse evasee actually has a 9.5 inch cooking surface. Interestingly, my experience is that an 11 inch sauteuse evasee "cooks bigger" than a 9.5 inch saute pan due to the special configuration of the pan, even though the bottoms of the two pans are the same size. However, what this means is that sauteuses evasee are only useful for sauteing at the 11 inch size and larger.

Also, Sur La Table, the Chicago store, anyway, now has a few 30 cm frypans (12 inches).  This size is, of course, wider, and just as important, deeper, than the next smaller 24 cm (10 inch?) Mauviel frypan.  I'd be far more inclined to buy and experiment with the larger frypan.

Frypans are one of those pans which can be useful in a lot of sizes. FWIW, I would also probably take the 30 cm pan over thge 24 cm pan myself. That said, I am not sure extra depth really helps much with a frypan -- the whole idea is to have low sloping sides to allow better evaporation.

The 9.5 inch Mauviel saute pan seems like it would accomodate two pieces of meat or fish, with not much room to spare, but I can't imagine that pan holding enough pasta, with sauce, for two hungry people.

I have a 9.5 inch saute pan and don't use it much. It would never hold enough pasta and sauce for two people. Personally, I'd go with an 11 inch curved sauteuse evasee or, as a second choice, an 11 inch saute pan.

[slkinsey]

...why buy a sauce pan in any size when you can get a similar sized sautuese evasee which would allow for maximum cooking utility? Am I being too simplistic with this reasoning?

It's all about picking the right pan for the righe job.

The thing about a sauteuse evasee is that it is fundamentally a reduction pan. The idea is to have a wide surface area for evaporation so sauces, etc. reduce quickly and efficiently. Curved sides make it easy to get a whisk or spoon around to all the corners.

As mentioned in my previous post, this design happens to work well for sauteing in the large sizes (11 inches -- or 10.5 inches in the case of the All-Clad pan you're thinking of buying). The smaller sizes aren't so useful in this respect.

So... this is the deal: you probably don't want every pan in your battery to be optimized for reductions and sauce making. Sometimes you would like to have a pan for reheating liquids, boiling water, blanching vegetables, holding sauces at temperature, etc. without having the liquid reduce, evaporate, form a skin, etc. In this case, you wouldn't want a sauteuse evasee, because a sauteuse evasee is designed to give you exactly what you don't want... you would rather have a tall saucepan, which is designed to give you the things you want. The only situation in which you would want a 4 quart sauteuse evasee would be if you were regularly making a lot of sauce or reducing a lot of liquid. Probably not the case in the usual home kitchen. Furthermore, a sauteuse evasee is a straight gauge pan. Straight gauge cookware is more expensive, and not necessarily useful in the kinds of tasks I describe above. In situations where you would like a tall saucepan, why not spend your money putting extra thermal material (aluminum, copper, whatever) on the bottom of the pan where it's needed instead of on the sides where it's not doing you much good?

[gkg680]

Thank you kindly, Sam. Your comments are informative and helpful, as usual, and I'm closer to the right track than I thought. Best wishes.

Greg in Chicago

[oraklet]

Furthermore, a sauteuse evasee is a straight gauge pan.

will it be no good if it isnt straight gauge? or have i misunderstood what this is about?

i've actually been thinking of buying (a rather cheap) one, as i often reduce my stocks very much due to lack of space in fridge/freezer.

[slkinsey]

Furthermore, a sauteuse evasee is a straight gauge pan.

will it be no good if it isnt straight gauge? or have i misunderstood what this is about?

Part of what makes a sauteuse evasee so good at reducing liquids has to do with the heat that is conducted into the liquid at the sides. Take a look at this comparison:

I wouldn't say that a sauteuse evasee is useless unless it is straight gauge... but I personally wouldn't want one that wasn't.

[robyn]

The only situation in which you would want a 4 quart sauteuse evasee would be if you were regularly making a lot of sauce or reducing a lot of liquid?

I tend to buy pots on sale - and then figure out what they're good for after .

I have a 10.5 inch 4 quart sauteuse and it's good for cooking up quick pasta sauces and then throwing in the pasta so you can mix the sauce with the pasta on the stove.

My pot isn't a big deal pot. It's Analon Professional - non-stick - with a helper handle. Can't complain because I bought it for 30 bucks and have more than gotten my money's worth. By the way - I know non-stick isn't popular here - but I like easy cleaning pots. Robyn

[oraklet]

Part of what makes a sauteuse evasee so good at reducing liquids has to do with the heat that is conducted into the liquid at the sides.  Take a look at this comparison:

ah, yes. of course.

[oraklet]

ok, here i go again...

inspired by the le creuset thread, i took a closer look at my raw cast iron copco pans. and to my surprise, i noticed that in the few places where they had dents, they actually look as if some enamel had chipped off. this is weird, as they otherwise do react to seasoning like normal cast iron, and they're as heavy as one would expect. under the outer, black layer is a dark silver grey material. what the devil is it i've gotten hold of?

[lorea]

I was wondering having an aluminum stockpot has any advantages or disadvantages over a stainless steel one (with aluminum bottom)? Are there any health risks with cooking with aluminum?

The restaurant supply store near me carries 20-qt. heavy-gauge (I would estimate it is about 1/3 inch in thickness) aluminum stockpots for about $30, which I think is a great deal. The store also doesn't carry stainless steel stockpots, so I am assuming most restaurants use aluminum stockpots? Is there a reason why aluminum stockpots aren't normally used at home?

I don't think there's anything acidic in the stock I normally make. I don't normally put tomato paste in my stocks (as the eGCI class did), but if I wanted to in the future, would that small amount be enough to make the stock taste metallic?

Thanks!!

[geekdoc]

Dear Chef,

> > I am a new egullet member and read with great interest your superb cookware

lecture and followup. As a former research scientist and physics major, I applaud your logical and clearly explained approach to selecting cookware. Shirley Corriher would be proud.<p>

I have a pretty extensive collection of tin-lined heavy copper, which I use daily. I recently had a few of my ancient pans relined by Rocky Mt Retinning with great results.<p>

I am wondering why you don't recommend these for home cooks? Given that I own them already, what besides the obvious (no brillo,

etc) do you recommend to extend their life between retinning? (Rocky Mt states that their tinning should last at least 2 years in a busy commerical kitchen or decades for home/light/irregular use. )

Any alternative to metal whisks for sauces? (That is all I have seen used in kitchens I have worked in as well as La Technigue, etc.)

I will say that these pans are lightning quick and clean up easily with an overnight soak, even for burnt on cream sauces or eggs.

I do have some newer Bourgeat SS/copper sautes I use for searing, and

agree that they are much lower maintenance.

Finally I would appreciate if you would expand on the following. Many experienced chefs believe that bright copper is necessary for even heat across the bottom, and I find it recommended in almost all major cooking textbooks. I have always felt that the rapid conduction of heavy copper was more than capable of smoothing out any minor differences that a tarnished bottom might induce and that the whole polishing issue was more of a carryover of the almost military heirarchy of the classic French restaurant kitchen. Frankly, I like the patina which lets people know that I actually use these as opposed to just hanging lacquered Portugese items on the wall. (and I'm lazy)

Thanks for any info you can provide on the tinned stuff.

Henry Dorn

Triad Catering

[geekdoc]

Another couple esoteric questions.

Does anyone make an induction pan with a magnetic (iron) base, copper layer for even distribution of heat as well as up the sides, and stainless outer layer?

I use the Mauviel Induc'inox currently for reactive foods but notice a very distict ring pattern of heat where the coils are and much less heat up the sides c/w my copper pans over gas.

I love the speed and efficiency of induction but believe there must be better pans out there.

Finally, have you seen a stockpot with a spigot like the Bourgeat which is induction compatible? Theirs and all of the others I have seen use non-magnetic stainless or aluminum.

Thanks in advance

[winesonoma]

I was wondering having an aluminum stockpot has any advantages or disadvantages over a stainless steel one (with aluminum bottom)? Are there any health risks with cooking with aluminum?

The restaurant supply store near me carries 20-qt. heavy-gauge (I would estimate it is about 1/3 inch in thickness) aluminum stockpots for about $30, which I think is a great deal. The store also doesn't carry stainless steel stockpots, so I am assuming most restaurants use aluminum stockpots? Is there a reason why aluminum stockpots aren't normally used at home?

I don't think there's anything acidic in the stock I normally make. I don't normally put tomato paste in my stocks (as the eGCI class did), but if I wanted to in the future, would that small amount be enough to make the stock taste metallic?

Thanks!!

Aluminum is cheaper. In a large stock-pot it does not seem to matter heat wise. I bought Stainless because I do Corned Beef a couple of times a year and the aluminum reacts with the corning.

[slkinsey]

I was wondering having an aluminum stockpot has any advantages or disadvantages over a stainless steel one (with aluminum bottom)? Are there any health risks with cooking with aluminum?

No health risks asociated with aluminum cookware. Probably nothing to worry about in terms of stocks either. However, stainless steel is a lot more versatile as you don't have to worry about reactivity for other applications.

[slkinsey]

I have a pretty extensive collection of tin-lined heavy copper, which I use daily. I recently had a few of my ancient pans relined by Rocky Mt Retinning with great results.  I am wondering why you don't recommend these for home cooks?

Well... because the tin wears off eventually, whereas it does not with a stainless lined pan. Also, you have to be much more careful about regulating the temperature of a tin lined pan. Tin melts at around 450F, and it doesn't take too much preheating to get a saute or fry pan up in that temperature range. You get a tin lined pan up to 500F and you've got a retinning on your hands. And, of course, you have to be carefull with using metal utensils, etc.

Now, for a professional cook who really knows what he's doing and who never stretches the tolerance of the pan, they probably work okay. But for a home cook, I just don't think it's worth the extra hassle and the limited usefulness with respect to high temperatures. This is not to say that you should throw away your old heirloom tin lined pans... just that I wouldn't recommend buying any more of it.

Given that I own them already, what besides the obvious (no brillo, etc) do you recommend to extend their life between retinning? (Rocky Mt states that their tinning should last at least 2 years in a busy commerical kitchen or decades for home/light/irregular use.)

With all due respect to Rocky Mountain Retinning, I don't believe for a minute that a tin lined pan could survive decades of regular use in a home without needing to be retinned. I know plenty of people who own old tin lined copper, and most of their stuff started to look patchy only a few years after retinning. This is, of course, another argument against tin linings: you have to keep on paying throughout the life of the pan. When you figure in the cost of retinnings, a stainless lining is actually less expensive.

The only thing I can think that would extend the life of a tin lined pan is to be extra careful about the hardness of the utensils used with it (I would recommend heatproof rubber spatulas instead of wooden spoons) and to be very diligent about never using more than medium heat and never preheating the pan.

Any alternative to metal whisks for sauces? (That is all I have seen used in kitchens I have worked in as well as La Technigue, etc.)

This is a tough one, as the main usefulness of tin lined copper, IMO, is for saucemaking and that generally requires a whisk. I can't be sure, but I think I saw some nonmetalic whisks and Apex spatulas at Bridge Kitchenware. You might consider giving them a call.

Finally I would appreciate if you would expand on the following. Many  experienced chefs believe that bright copper is necessary for even heat across the bottom, and I find it recommended in almost all major cooking textbooks.

I don't know how expansive this is, but I think it's complete bullshit. You're talking about an oxidized layer that is maybe a few atoms thick. I can't believe that it impacts the thermal properties of the pan one iota, and if it does you'd have to have superhuman perceptual skills (not to mention cooking skills) to tell the difference. Many experienced chefs, of course, believe a lot of things that are total bullshit ("searing seals in the juices," anyone?). If I were a betting man, I'd bet you're right about the insistence on bright copper being a holdover from the hardline French days. That said, it's relatively easy to keep copper bright with a Scotch Brite pad and some Bar Keeper's Friend, provided you don't mind a brushed finish (probably okay for a working pan, but I wouldn't do it to an heirloom piece).

Welcome to the Gull, Henry. Hope to see more of you around on the boards!

[slkinsey]

Another couple esoteric questions.

Does anyone make an induction pan with a magnetic (iron) base,  copper layer for even distribution of heat as well as up the sides, and stainless outer layer?

The only thing I have seen that even remotely reminds me of your specifications is All-Clad's Copper Core line. It is a core of copper fully clad in stainless steel. I assume the stainless is magnetic.

Finally, have you seen a stockpot with a spigot like the Bourgeat which is induction compatible? Theirs and all of the others I have seen use non-magnetic stainless or aluminum.

Yes. Paderno Grand Gourmet

Grand Gourmet Serie 2100

12102

Outside and inside satin polished. Top edges mirror polished.  - Valuable stay cool handles in stainless steel, strong, ergonomically shaped.  1) Extra thick edges.  2) Double thick bottom.  3) Sandwich thermoradiant bottom (stainless steel-aluminium-stainless steel). Concave bottom when cold and flat when hot (100% heat exploiting).  4) Endowed by tap, in order to facilitate water downflow.  -Perfect for use on any type of stove, whether gas, electric, glass ceramic cooking surface or induction stove. All items up to Ø 50 cm. have an induction-suited sandwichbottom.

Looks pretty sweet, no?

[geekdoc]

For some strange reason, All Clad's Copper Core uses non-magnetic SS unlike the rest of their pans. Learned the hard way. Anyone want one cheap?

Still would like a pan with a thick magnetic (ferrous) base and better lateral conduction. Maybe if the technology ever hits the consumer markey here...

Thanks for the heads up on the Paderno pot. Does Bridge carry them? Probably pretty expensive, but they all are.

Not sure why Bourgeat uses magnetic steel on all of their other stockpots and changes for the spigot models, maybe it has to do with the welding of the spigot.

Cook well and thanks for all the great advice!

Edited March 8, 2004 by geekdoc (log)

[Boris_A]

I assume the stainless is magnetic.

We choose a stainless steel covering for our new frigde. When we moved out magnetic stickers - and bum! on the floor they went. I tested several stainless in my household. We learned that some stainless is magnetic and others not. Depends on the composition, an engineer told me.

[MobyP]

I'm in mourning. One of the great high end Italian lines of SS cookware - Pentole - that curiously I've only ever seen in the UK - has just gone out of business. All the high end cook shops in town are selling off the last of their stocks. My mother bought a set 15 years ago that looks good as new today. Seriously good stuff.

btw - Sam, fantastic thread.

BTW - I went to Divertimenti yesterday (UK equivalent of Surly Tubble/Willy Snowman - as my wife calls Sur la Table/W. Sonoma) who Mauviel also make a 'line' for, and - they've completely reinvented their Stuff! 2.5mm thickness with Bourgeat-like curved edges - across the whole line - and Stainless Steel handles - as opposed to brass or iron. This stuff looks amazing. I haven't found any pictures of it though. Are they sending this stuff to America?

Edited March 9, 2004 by MobyP (log)

[slkinsey]

BTW - I went to Divertimenti yesterday (UK equivalent of Surly Tubble/Willy Snowman - as my wife calls Sur la Table/W. Sonoma) who Mauviel also make a 'line' for, and - they've completely reinvented their Stuff! 2.5mm thickness with Bourgeat-like curved edges - across the whole line - and Stainless Steel handles - as opposed to brass or iron. This stuff looks amazing. I haven't found any pictures of it though. Are they sending this stuff to America?

Yes they are sending this stuff to the US. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be 2.5 mm. Mauviel's 2.5 mm stuff still has the traditional straight rim like this and the 2.0 mm stuff has a rolled rim like this. Looking at the two pans above, the 2.0 mm pan looks like a pretty rotten deal considering that it is the same price as the 2.5 mm pan!

Here is a similar pan with the stainless steel handle (also 2.0 mm). This pan is actually more expensive than the 2.5 mm pan!

You can see examples of all four lines of Mauviel's stainless lined copper (2.5 mm/iron handle, 2.0 mm/iron handle, 2.0 stainless steel handle and 1.6 mm/brass handle) here.

[gkg680]

I'm just a rank amateur, who cooks for the joy of it, but after buying Mauviel's commercial-grade, stainless-lined 28 cm (11 inch) copper saute recently, I would strongly discourage anyone from buying a cheaper form of copper cookware.

If one doesn't want the expense or maintenance of copper, fine, several manufacturers make terrific cookware in stainless or other materials, as many earlier posts have mentioned, but buying 2.0 mm copper rather than 2.5 mm strikes me as a very poor way to save money.

My copper pan is so efficient, and such an artifact of beauty, in a sturdy, indestructible way, I wish I'd bought it years ago.

In 1997 I visited Paris for the first time, and took a half-day tour to Claude Monet's house in Giverny, which has been restored. His kitchen has a very old but timeless set of similar copper pans with iron handles hanging on the wall.

It was quite astonishing to hear the tour guide say that Monet told friends that he painted to make a living, but his passion, the one thing he claimed to have talent for, was cooking.

Of course, if you can get to Paris, copper cookware at Dehillerin costs less than All-Clad costs here. A good excuse to go.

[MobyP]

Drat dag-namit - p'fooey. 2mm? Really?

I think I've written elsewhere - when we first returned from America (to the UK), my wife took me for a birthday present to Villedieu-les-Poeles, and straight to the Mauviel factory. By the time we left, the car was scraping the tarmac. The stuff ends up being about a third the price of the US, and half the price of the UK. I also bought the 11-inch sauté - and it's unbelievably heavy. I tend to use it for v. high temperature and long simmer work - like 'quick sauces'. The sauteuse evasée - as Sam notes - is remarkable for reductions. If I'm reducing 15 litres of stock down to glace, the evasée is often as fast as any other two pans put together.

The first downside - I do wish the sides were rolled like the bourgeat - which is why I was so excited.

The second downside - I placed a 6 quart (long handle) saucepan in a long slow oven - 4 hours or so - and when I took it out, the varnish on the iron handle had discoloured, and cracked in places. Some rust spots have now appeared. So - not quite sturdy as I'd imagined.

[gkg680]

MobyP-

I live in Chicago and have wanted to visit Villedieu and buy more cookware and tour the war monuments and the Calvados distilleries for years.

May I ask, if you don't mind, what size sauteuse evasee pans you bought and use most often? Would you recommend the trip to the copper factories, both as en enjoyable escape, and as a fun way to buy copper cookware if one was thinking of buying some?

I would add that many people couldn't use the 11 inch Mauviel saute, it's so heavy, even when empty. I'd prefer a rolled edge, and no pan is more in need of a helper handle. It's truly a weapon.

I'd love to hear any additional recollections you have, of visiting the manufacturer, because I've found no such information on the Internet, other than comments from many people who enjoyed visiting Normandy and who found the area to be less touristy and more interesting than the Cote D'Azur.

Thank you most kindly.