The All All-Clad Cookware Topic

logicalmind · May 11, 2007

You should go ahead and email the all-clad customer service rep, they will tell you the truth. At least they did with me. They specifically told me that the MC2 line outperforms the stainless line. Maybe I was in contact with an unusually honest customer service rep though.

The customer service rep also told me that I should look into buying seconds rather than brand new pans.

Grovite · May 13, 2007

You should go ahead and email the all-clad customer service rep, they will tell you the truth. At least they did with me. They specifically told me that the MC2 line outperforms the stainless line. Maybe I was in contact with an unusually honest customer service rep though.
The customer service rep also told me that I should look into buying seconds rather than brand new pans.
←

Straight on. Also, find a shop where the people aren't going to blow sunshine up your ass. I would never tell my customers a flat out lie like that.

paulraphael · May 14, 2007

They're going to perform differently; which is better depends on what you're up to.

The MC pan will behave more like commercial aluminum, calphalon, etc.; it will heat very evenly, retain a fair amount of heat, and have medium responsiveness (somewhere between copper and iron).

The stainless will heat less evenly (probably only noticeable on a large pan), will retain less heat, and respond quickly. The responsiveness is more like copper.

I don't have any experience with all clad sauce pans or big sauté pans, but I have their stainless 10" frying pan. For fast sautéeing, I prefer its responsiveness and tossability to that of my commercial weight aluminum pans (which I assume are more similar to the MC pans). It also works great as a roasting pan.

My only (minor) misgiving is that compared with the heavier pans, iit seems to conduct more heat up the sides, so I spend more time scraping browned bits off the sides when I reduce pan sauces. This seems counterintuitive, but it's prettty consistent.

Edited May 14, 2007 by paulraphael (log)

slkinsey · May 14, 2007

I agree with Paul's main premise, which is that the pans will perform differently depending on what you are looking for. The main difference, however, I believe is one of maintenance: All-Clad Stainless is dishwasher-safe, and you trade off some performance in order to have this feature.

The MC pan will behave more like commercial aluminum, calphalon, etc.; it will heat very evenly, retain a fair amount of heat, and have medium responsiveness (somewhere between copper and iron).

"Somewhere between copper and iron" is an awfully large range. In use most people will find aluminum cookware to be "responsive" and cast iron cookware to be "not responsive." (More on this below.)

The stainless will heat less evenly (probably only noticeable on a large pan), will retain less heat, and respond quickly. The responsiveness is more like copper.

It's debatable in my mind as to whether an All-Clad Stainless pan will come up to temperature and respond more rapidly compared to MasterChef. This is primarily due to the fact that the Stainless line contains twice as much stainless steel, which material has very poor thermal conductivity. I did some calculations assuming a 20 cm (8 inch) frypan, and found that the thermal capacity of the two pans was fairly close, with the MasterChef pan at 4,888 and the Stainless pan at 4,109. This would tend to favor the Stainless pan in responsiveness. However, 48% of the Stainless pan's thermal capacity is contributed by stainless steel compared to only 18% for the MasterChef pan. Stainless steel has extremely poor thermal conductivity compared to aluminum (0.16 W/cm/K versus 2.27 for aluminum) and I have to believe this will have a significant effect on performance.

I'm also not sure I'd say the responsiveness would be at all "like copper." A 20 cm copper frypan would have a thermal capacity similar to that of the MasterChef pan (4,814) but only 9% of this capacity is attributable to stainless steel. Considering copper's much higher thermal conductivity (4.01 W/cm/K), it's going to have much better responsiveness than either the Stainless or MasterChef pan, while also benefitting from the higher thermal capacity of the MasterChef pan.

In comparison, the same 20 cm frypan in cast iron would have a thermal capacity of 4,977, and with low thermal conductivity to move all that thermal energy around (0.8 W/cm/K) it would respond quite slowly. (I assumed a 3 mm thickness for the cast iron pan. For a thicker cast iron pan, the responsiveness would be even slower.)

I don't have any experience with all clad sauce pans or big sauté pans, but I have their stainless 10" frying pan. For fast sautéeing, I prefer its responsiveness and tossability to that of my commercial weight aluminum pans

For true sautéing, where the ingredients are frequently tossed around in the pan, a lighter weight can be handy and you're not as concerned about hot spots. If I used the "pan flipping" technique frequently, I'd probably be inclined towards a large heavy gauge carbon steel frypan rather than an All-Clad frypan. However, I like to use an actual sauté pan with low straight sides, which allows me to move the ingredients around simply by shaking the pan back and forth on the burner grate (this is why sauté pans have straight sides). The advantage of using a sauté pan that you're not going to be "flipping" for this technique is that you can get something with a gigantic thermal pad on the bottom (e.g., 7 mm of aluminum) to really blast heat into the sautéed ingredients.

My only (minor) misgiving [with the All-Clad Stainless frypan] is that compared with the heavier pans, it seems to conduct more heat up the sides, so I spend more time scraping browned bits off the sides when I reduce pan sauces. This seems counterintuitive, but it's prettty consistent.

This is likely hot spots due to the high percentage of stainless steel.

paulraphael · May 14, 2007

My comparison to the copper is based purely on the subjective experience of using the two materials side by side. And comparing to heavier aluminum. If anything, the all clad stainless pan feels a bit quicker than my copper pans. The difference between the metals seems to be more than offset by the difference in mass.

You're right that any issue of evenness is more than offset by the way a small frying pan gets used (tossing food). And by its size.

And also about the weight. I use this pan instead of a 10" copper pan, because I find the copper in this size to be too heavy and badly balanced to work for this style of cooking. My 12" pan is copper ... but I don't try to toss that thing around. I like the stainless finish for sauté/fry pans (more than a spun steel pan, for instance) because I really like the stainless cooking surface for deglazing and making pan sauces. For the way I cook it's a kind of best compromise.

I don't believe the extra layer of stainless steel makes much difference. It might be measureable, but it has so little thickness and so little mass that we can still think of the all clad pan as being aluminum. The stainless series is just a thinner piece of aluminum than the MC.

The issue of the sides getting hot does not seem like a hot-spot issue. The sides heat up completely evenly. It seems more like too much conductivity up the sides, rather than too little (even though the physics of this makes little sense). It's not about flames wrapping up around the side of the pan ... I'm not letting that happen.

Edited May 14, 2007 by paulraphael (log)

slkinsey · May 14, 2007

My 12" pan is copper ... but I don't try to toss that thing around. I like the stainless finish for sauté/fry pans (more than a spun steel pan, for instance) because I really like the stainless cooking surface for deglazing and making pan sauces. For the way I cook it's a kind of best compromise.

Yea, a lot of people find copper frypans too heavy for the "flipping" technique. I don't find this too much of an issue, but then again I have Popeye forearms and, as I posted above, I don't often use the "flipping" technique anyway since I like to sauté in a sauté pan.

Now that I think about it, I wonder what the real weight difference is between identical pieces of All-Clad Stainless and MasterChef. Some quick math indicates that the difference is likely to be less than 100 grams (3.5 ounces) for an 20 cm frypan. Of course, this difference would go up for larger sizes. Not that this is definitive, but Amazon.com's listed weights are the same for the same sizes of All-Clad Stainless and MasterChef fry pans.

I don't believe the extra layer of stainless steel makes much difference. It might be measureable, but it has so little thickness and so little mass that we can still think of the all clad pan as being aluminum. The stainless series is just a thinner piece of aluminum than the MC.

I'm not sure I agree with this. It might be reasonable to assume that the pan is "all thermal material" when it is a stainless lined heavy copper pan, but definitely not for the All-Clad Stainless pan. Consider that 48% of the thermal capacity is attributed to stainless steel. That's a lot! Especially compared to 18% for MasterChef. Or, to think about it another way, if you were to take a sideways slice of an All-Clad stainless pan, 36% the thickness would be stainless steel compared to only 12% for MasterChef and 8% for stainless lined heavy copper. Again, that's not nothing. It's not just that the Stainless pan has a thinner piece of aluminum, it has a thinner piece of aluminum plus twice as much stainless steel.

tim · August 23, 2007

Hi,

Sears, of all places is offering an 8 piece set of fully-clad cookware for $100.

Kenmore 8 piece Tri-Ply Cookware Set

The set is remarkable for a number of reasons.

1. The same thickness as All-Clad Stainless.

2. The sauce pans are nicely proportioned and NEST!

3. The handle is much thicker than the All-Clad handles.

4. The pans have interior capacity markings.

5. The pans have nice POURING LIPS.

6. The lids are much heavier than the All-Clad lids.

And an incredible bargain.

Tim

ps edit: These pans use Stainless grade 304 (18/8) which is not as corrosion resistant as the grade 216 (18/10) used by All-Clad. The lids and handles are both made of grade 316.

Edited August 23, 2007 by tim (log)

Linda Rose · August 23, 2007

Hi,
Sears, of all places is offering an 8 piece set of fully-clad cookware for $100.
Kenmore 8 piece Tri-Ply Cookware Set
←

I picked up a set of these when they were on sale a few months ago. I am totally pleased with them. I like the handles better than AC too.

Amy Eber · October 7, 2007

I currently use Calphalon pots and pans but am considering buying the 15 piece set of All-Clad Copper Core pots and pans. I have read quite a bit about them and they sound great. I do not want to spend time maintaining copper pans sp thought this was a nice way to take get some of the benefits of copper without the agony of cleaning them.

Has anyone used them? What is your opinion? Thanks in advance for your help.

BigboyDan · October 7, 2007

I do not want to spend time maintaining copper pans sp thought this was a nice way to take get some of the benefits of copper without the agony of cleaning them.
←

You answered your own question.

Joe Blowe · October 7, 2007

Long answer:

Copper with an Interior and Exterior Lining of Stainless Steel
- Otherwise similar to Copper with an Interior Lining of Stainless Steel, but the copper is fully clad in stainless steel.
- Due to manufacturing considerations, the copper layer in fully clad cookware is often significantly thinner than the copper layer on comparable interior-lined cookware. This can negatively impact both evenness of heat and heat capacity. However, this design should confer more thermal benefits than Aluminum with an Interior and Exterior Lining of Stainless Steel.
- May be cleaned in the dishwasher.
- Extremely expensive.
- Things to consider: Although these pans would seem to confer many of the benefits of heavy copper with none of the maintenance concerns, the cost of this cookware is so high that one is often paying substantially more for cookware with less copper than the already expensive big boys in Copper with an Interior Lining of Stainless Steel. That is a high price to pay for the privilege of throwing a pan in the dishwasher.

Short answer: Your money is better spent elsewhere.

Marlene · October 7, 2007

On the other hand, I use All Clad Copper Core and I love them. They replaced my all clad stainless steel pans last year.

budrichard · October 7, 2007

A Search will yield a lot of discussion that has already gone on in the this Forum.

The short answer is that ALL Clad Copper Core is not copper cookware but no different in performance than regular All Clad. All Clad uses a thin layer of copper and when asked for the thickness(Commerical copper ware is 2.5mm thick), All Clad says that is propietary information. The rest is aluminum.

I purchased an All Clad Copper Core fry pan for my daughter who cannot handle the weight of commercial copper cookware. Using the same size Falk Copper fry pan with identical volumes of water, the All Clad took significantly longer for the water to boil. Falk is a brushed copper exterior and one doesn't worry about making it shine and its treated like any other pot/pan.-Dick

Octaveman · October 10, 2007

I agree with Dick. I have Falk pans and love them. Brushed sides do not require polishing. You can let the pan for it's natural patina or clean the copper with Barkeepers Friend. No big deal. I'm pretty sure the cost would be siginificantly cheaper with the volume discount at the website below than All-Clad. On a side note, it's a pure waste of money to buy copper lids. It does nothing other than get scratched up and matches your pan. Provides no benefit when cooking. Go to Bridge Kitchenware.com and buy some SS lids that work just fine and are 90% cheaper.

http://www.copperpans.com/

Bonnie Ruth · October 11, 2007

A Search will yield a lot of discussion that has already gone on in the this Forum.
The short answer is that ALL Clad Copper Core is not copper cookware but no different in performance than regular All Clad. All Clad uses a thin layer of copper and when asked for the thickness(Commerical copper ware is 2.5mm thick), All Clad says that is propietary information. The rest is aluminum.
I purchased an All Clad Copper Core fry pan for my daughter who cannot handle the weight of commercial copper cookware. Using the same size Falk Copper fry pan with identical volumes of water, the All Clad took significantly longer for the water to boil. Falk is a brushed copper exterior and one doesn't worry about making it shine and its treated like any other pot/pan.-Dick
←

These responses are surprising me. Copper core pans, and I think All Clad in particular, got a very good rating from Fine Cooking. I have just one, a dutch oven, and it seems to heat a lot faster than my other pans and hold the heat well. Or can this be just suggestion? I looked at the Falk site and would have loved to have any of their pans, but just eyeballing it, I couldn't really see that they were less expensive than All Clad.

"Proprietary informaton?" How dare they!

Octaveman · October 12, 2007

Comparing one copper core pan to a basic SS pan and then saying you don't see how solid copper pan could be any better is akin to comparing a Maxima to a Altima and then saying you don't see how a Mercedes is any better. Of course All Clad got a good rating. Were they comparing it to Falk or Mauvil?

Pans:

11" fry pan

3qt sauceire (9.5")

2.5qt sauce pan

Falk = $595 (www.copperpans.com)

All Clad copper core $760 (www.chefsresource.com)

Now sizes were slightly different like for example Falk sauce pan was 2.5 qts and Allclad was 2qts and I used the 11" falk fry pan and the Allclad 12". This should balance out the size differences of each of these to be equal overall. So...NOW which would you buy if you were thinking of AllClad Copper Core pans? No brainer to me.

**JAZ** · October 12, 2007

I purchased an All Clad Copper Core fry pan for my daughter who cannot handle the weight of commercial copper cookware. Using the same size Falk Copper fry pan with identical volumes of water, the All Clad took significantly longer for the water to boil. Falk is a brushed copper exterior and one doesn't worry about making it shine and its treated like any other pot/pan.-Dick
←

I agree with Dick. I have Falk pans and love them. Brushed sides do not require polishing. You can let the pan for it's natural patina or clean the copper with Barkeepers Friend. No big deal.
←

Pans:
11" fry pan
3qt sauceire (9.5")
2.5qt sauce pan
Falk = $595 (www.copperpans.com)
All Clad copper core $760 (www.chefsresource.com)
Now sizes were slightly different like for example Falk sauce pan was 2.5 qts and Allclad was 2qts and I used the 11" falk fry pan and the Allclad 12". This should balance out the size differences of each of these to be equal overall. So...NOW which would you buy if you were thinking of AllClad Copper Core pans? No brainer to me.
←

It seems to me that the choice doesn't have to be between Falk and All-Clad. There are other options -- Demeyere's Atlantis or Sirocco lines, for instance, which have a copper disk bottom enclosed in stainless steel. Yes, they're slightly less responsive than copper (2 cups of water took 30 seconds longer to boil in my Demeyere Sirocco saucepan than in my Mauviel professional). But balancing that out, in my opinion, is ease of use. The Demeyere, while not lightweight, is lighter than the Mauviel. The handles and lid handles stay cool (by the time the water in the Mauviel came to a boil, I couldn't lift the lid off without a towel. The Demeyere was still cool to the touch.)

And when it comes to ease of cleaning and care, the Demeyere blows copper out of the water. It goes in the dishwasher and comes out shiny. It doesn't look brand new, but I've had some of my pieces for more than five years, and they still look great.

(And this was before I had a dishwasher. It looks better now.)

My Mauviel? I've had it for about 18 months and even with polishing, it looks shabby. All the talk of "patina" glosses over the fact that with time, copper just won't look as good as stainless does, even if you take the time to polish it. When it comes to copper cookware, "patina" is just a euphemism for tarnish and discoloration. It's not the end of the world, of course, but it makes a difference to me. I like my cookware to look nice.

For most cooks in a home, I just don't think copper makes that much difference. I have both, and if I had it to do over again, I probably wouldn't buy the copper -- I certainly would not pay full price for it.

And, as far as price goes, you can get a 6-piece Atlantis set, which includes a skillet, a saucepan, a sautepan and a casserole, for $650 -- $55 more than the three pieces of Falk quoted above.

Octaveman · October 12, 2007

You have very valid points Janet. I can tell you're very passionate about your opinion. But, all I was doing was adding info to show the point that it doesn't make sense to buy Allclad copper core when you can have solid copper for siginficantly cheaper. Sure, you can get SS pans even cheaper than that but the whole point was to say why spend more money for the perceived benefit of copper with the Allclad option and go the all copper route instead and for less money. I used Falk as an example because I have Falk and Budrichard brought up Falk. Simple as that. I heard that Mauvil doesn't clean up nice and that's one of the reasons I got Falk with it's brushed copper. If the handles get hot, I use a towel. No big deal to me. If they get too "tarnished" I clean them with barkeepers friend and they look new again. No big deal to me. If I had a choice of copper or SS or SS w/ a copper core I would still choose copper every time. Even if I could get one more pan with the Atlantis set or even buy a slew of Sitram SS pans for hundreds less. Different strokes I guess.

p.s. The Atlantis set you linked...the frying pan is too small and I would rather have a sauciere in stead of a cassarole pan. Also, it's not a good idea to buy sets. Better to buy the individual pieces you want, not a set you'd settle for. I have three Falk pieces and do everything I want them to do. And it's cheaper. And they're better. :raz:

Edited October 12, 2007 by Octaveman (log)

**Dave the Cook** · October 12, 2007

Without a whole lot of information, saying that one pan is objectively better than another is pretty much impossible, since cooks have different styles, different kitchen setups and different maintenance needs. If you reread Amy's original post, she says 1) she wants some of the benefits of copper; 2) she doesn't want to have to do a lot of maintenance; 3) she's interested in a set. Further, I think we can deduce that price is a lesser consideration -- whether it's good or not, All-Clad Copper Core is not inexpensive.

Every decision is a compromise. The benefits of copper are evenness of heat, high specific heat (per cubic centimeter) and responsiveness. If you insist on all of those, you give up ease of maintenance (maybe a scrub with BKF is no big deal to some, but it's still more work than putting a pan in the dishwasher). But maybe you don't really need or can't use copper's exceptional responsiveness. If you're steaming or doing high-heat sautes, copper isn't particularly helpful; stainless is fine for the former and thick aluminum is a better choice for the latter. If you've got an electric coil cooktop, the lethargy of your heat source will negate responsiveness and specific heat.

Sets: well, they're almost always bad compromises. You end up with pieces you never use or that are inappropriate for your purposes, and you'll probably have to supplement the set, anyway.

So Amy, what and how do you cook? Do you have a dishwasher? How much maintenance is too much? What kind of cooktop do you have?

. . . .
p.s. The Atlantis set you linked...the frying pan is too small and I would rather have a sauciere in stead of a cassarole pan. Also, it's not a good idea to buy sets. Better to buy the individual pieces you want, not a set you'd settle for. I have three Falk pieces and do everything I want them to do. And it's cheaper. And they're better.
←

Not cheaper by much. For the three pieces you listed earlier (11" fry pan, 3-qt sauciere, 2.5-qt sauce pan), the corresponding Atlantis items come to $632.50.

budrichard · October 12, 2007

A Search will yield a lot of discussion that has already gone on in the this Forum.
The short answer is that ALL Clad Copper Core is not copper cookware but no different in performance than regular All Clad. All Clad uses a thin layer of copper and when asked for the thickness(Commerical copper ware is 2.5mm thick), All Clad says that is propietary information. The rest is aluminum.
I purchased an All Clad Copper Core fry pan for my daughter who cannot handle the weight of commercial copper cookware. Using the same size Falk Copper fry pan with identical volumes of water, the All Clad took significantly longer for the water to boil. Falk is a brushed copper exterior and one doesn't worry about making it shine and its treated like any other pot/pan.-Dick
←
These responses are surprising me. Copper core pans, and I think All Clad in particular, got a very good rating from Fine Cooking. I have just one, a dutch oven, and it seems to heat a lot faster than my other pans and hold the heat well. Or can this be just suggestion? I looked at the Falk site and would have loved to have any of their pans, but just eyeballing it, I couldn't really see that they were less expensive than All Clad.
"Proprietary informaton?" How dare they!
←

I don't believe I ever said Falk was less expensive, just real copper cookware.

None of my Falk goes into a dishwasher, in fact there are pieces I don't think would fit.

If cosmetics are important, you don't want copper.

If you have electrics, you don't want copper.

But if you want the fastest performing pots/pans, can tolerate the copper finish and cook with gas, then its the best thing out there.-Dick

Edited October 12, 2007 by budrichard (log)

**Dave the Cook** · October 12, 2007

. . . .
If cosmetics are important, you don't want copper.

If you love the look of copper -- which is a perfectly legitimate desire -- and are willing to maintain it properly, copper is the only thing that looks like copper.

If you have electrics, you don't want copper.

Copper works fine with electric ranges, especially radiant cooktops. You just have to move the pan off the burner. Conversely, if you've got a gas range with big-ass iron grates, don't expect your copper cookware to cool off very quickly -- again, unless you move it off that big old heat sponge.

But if you want the fastest performing pots/pans, can tolerate the copper finish and cook with gas, then its the best thing out there.-Dick
←

You've choked down the requirements pretty tightly, and I think that's unfortunate. Like any other piece of equipment, copper cookware has a learning curve. If all you've ever cooked with is cast iron, your first few experiences with copper will scare the crap out of you. If you've been using straight-gauge aluminum, you'll have to learn a bit of patience when you switch to cladded pans. Copper is more responsive than cast iron, but doesn't have its heat capacity. Aluminum is more responsive than cladded cookware, but you can't put it in the dishwasher (okay, you shouldn't). Compromises.

paulraphael · October 12, 2007

And some of us like the look of tarnished, scorched, used copper. I love it. If someone polished my pans I'd be pissed.

JoshRountree · February 11, 2008

After reading Sam's article about cookware I recieved an All-Clad MC2 fry pan for Christmas which replaced a non-stick pan that just didn't hold up, and I haven't looked back.

I'm now in the process of buying other cookware to round out my collection and was looking at pieces he mentioned from Bridge Kitchenware. I also noticed that cookware 'n' more has a deal going on this month for 20% off if you buy 4 pieces.

I can get 2 2qt sauciers w/lid (one for the girlfriend), 1 4.5qt saucepan w/ lid & loop, and 1 4qt 10.5" saute pan w/ lid & loop for $324.37 shipped.

From Sam's article back in 2003 it seems that prices for Paderno and Sitram have gone up, and Bridge doesn't carry the least expensive Sitram Profiserie line any more. For the equivalent pieces in either Sitram Catering or Paderno Grand Gourmet I'm looking at $350-$360 and that's without the extra Saucier.

Unless someone can tell me a good reason not too, I think I'm going to pull the trigger.

Thanks for any insight.

Melic · February 13, 2008

After reading Sam's article about cookware I recieved an All-Clad MC2 fry pan for Christmas which replaced a non-stick pan that just didn't hold up, and I haven't looked back.
I'm now in the process of buying other cookware to round out my collection and was looking at pieces he mentioned from Bridge Kitchenware. I also noticed that cookware 'n' more has a deal going on this month for 20% off if you buy 4 pieces.
I can get 2 2qt sauciers w/lid (one for the girlfriend), 1 4.5qt saucepan w/ lid & loop, and 1 4qt 10.5" saute pan w/ lid & loop for $324.37 shipped.
From Sam's article back in 2003 it seems that prices for Paderno and Sitram have gone up, and Bridge doesn't carry the least expensive Sitram Profiserie line any more. For the equivalent pieces in either Sitram Catering or Paderno Grand Gourmet I'm looking at $350-$360 and that's without the extra Saucier.
Unless someone can tell me a good reason not too, I think I'm going to pull the trigger.
Thanks for any insight.
←

I've dealt with cookware n more on several occasions and my experience has been that they're topnotch with customer service. If they can't find a "second" that they think you would like they won't ship it. And they'll proactively call and/or email you about your order if there are any issues. (They've called me to ask about alternatives if there is something I've ordered that isn't in stock) And twice a year they have an additional 20 percent off on single orders of cookware - no need to buy 4 to get the extra discount. IIRC those sales are in November and March.

If you want All-Clad, IMO they're the only place to go. What makes the pieces "seconds" are cosmetic blemishes so small (think a wee non-gouge scratch on the outside of the pan the size of your little fingernail) they'd probably occur naturally the first time you used the cookware anyway.

I haven't bought any cookware recently - simply because I now have Everything In the World and I have no more space to store anything!

I wouldn't buy All-Clad any other way. Certainly not at full retail!!

sygyzy · February 15, 2008

Link to "Sam's article on cookware?"

Sign In

The All All-Clad Cookware Topic

Recommended Posts

Similar Content

Recently Browsing 0 members