# High end frying pan recommendation



## evilgawd

Hey there, 

Looking for recommendation for a good frying pan . Im using an electric range right now and been using all-clad for 15 years or so . Been doing a lot more cooking lately and would like to upgrade that piece of equipment. Im tempted to get something with copper as from what I am reading you get a bit more reactiveness with the heat ( maybe im wrong?) . Im willing to spend 400 CAD( 300USD) to get something nice. Low maintenance is a plus 

Falk signature or copper core fall into that range
All-clad from what im reading there is not enough copper to make a difference
Demeyere proline appears to be ranking pretty high 

Any other recommendations ? 

Much appreciated


----------



## damiano

I have a gas stove, and for frying pans I use Mauviel copper (similar to the Falk copper), and a De Buyer carbon steel pan. Both are really excellent options, though different from each other.

In the past I used a Demeyere Proline, and a Paderno Grand Gourmet paella pan. I never warmed to the Demeyere, imho it’s overpriced. The Paderno is truly wonderful and relatively cheap.

Where do you live, USA? For an electric stove I might choose differently than for my gas range.


----------



## evilgawd

I'm in Montreal , Canada


----------



## AT5760

Wahnamhong said:


> The Paderno is truly wonderful and relatively cheap.



I'll second that. My Paderno carbon steel pan is my favorite over several others costing much more money. It's not high-end, and looks pretty utilitarian, but that's ok with me. It works well on both glass/electric and gas.


----------



## DrEriksson

I decided to go for a high quality frying pan, and bought the Fissler original pro. Its the only pot/pan in my kitchen where the bottom has not stayed flat, and it’s also the most expensive pot/pan I’ve got. Bad purchase, need to get a new steel pan.

For cast iron, I use a Skeppshult and for non stick I have a Satake with Honeycomb Whitford Xylan. Both works fine. Little drawback on the Satake for some lost space on the bottom, due to the edges curving early.


----------



## damiano

DrEriksson said:


> I decided to go for a high quality frying pan, and bought the Fissler original pro. Its the only pot/pan in my kitchen where the bottom has not stayed flat, and it’s also the most expensive pot/pan I’ve got. Bad purchase, need to get a new steel pan.
> 
> For cast iron, I use a Skeppshult and for non stick I have a Satake with Honeycomb Whitford Xylan. Both works fine. Little drawback on the Satake for some lost space on the bottom, due to the edges curving early.


That's strange: I have several Fissler Original Profi pans and they are all top notch. What do you mean the bottom doesn't stay flat, even when the pan is hot? The bottom isn't flat when cold, precisely to help flatten it when it becomes hot. 

The Fissler OP and the Paderno Grand Gourmet have the same construction: they are both aluminum disc bottom pans with around 6mm of aluminum. That's some of the thickest cookware bottoms you can find, much thicker than the Demeyere Proline's.


----------



## damiano

evilgawd said:


> I'm in Montreal , Canada


Ah okay, I don't know that market well. What are some of the prices you see for e.g. the Proline, Fissler, and Falk? And are you able to buy from European amazon sites? (for example www.amazon.de)


----------



## DrEriksson

Wahnamhong said:


> That's strange: I have several Fissler Original Profi pans and they are all top notch. What do you mean the bottom doesn't stay flat, even when the pan is hot? The bottom isn't flat when cold, precisely to help flatten it when it becomes hot.
> 
> The Fissler OP and the Paderno Grand Gourmet have the same construction: they are both aluminum disc bottom pans with around 6mm of aluminum. That's some of the thickest cookware bottoms you can find, much thicker than the Demeyere Proline's.



Bottom is convex, same regardless of temp. I’ve also been careful not cooling it off to fast, as I took extra care of this expensive one. Really sad. And as I said, it’s the only cookware in my kitchen that has not stayed flat.


----------



## spaceconvoy

Wahnamhong said:


> The Fissler OP and the Paderno Grand Gourmet have the same construction: they are both aluminum disc bottom pans with around 6mm of aluminum. That's some of the thickest cookware bottoms you can find, much thicker than the Demeyere Proline's.


FWIW, my relatively cheap Anolon stainless is 6mm thick. This is no help to OP, but I've generally found high end cookware to be disappointing. And you will not be able to tell the difference between aluminum and copper. If you just want something nice, what about a Staub skillet paired with a decent midrange aluminum-encapsulated stainless?


----------



## btbyrd

I'm curious what uses make copper worth paying for. My regular All-Clad is plenty responsive over gas and induction, and I don't know that copper would provide much of a real-world advantage there even if it's technically superior. Regular All-Clad also heats evenly enough for my purposes. I do have a few clad copper pieces, but it's mostly because I got a good deal on a quality pan than because I thought they were especially great performers relative to non-copper. I just don't see the point. I can understand shelling out $300 for some enameled cast iron or for a high end donabe or something, but copper frying pans aren't something I can get my head around.


----------



## damiano

DrEriksson said:


> Bottom is convex, same regardless of temp. I’ve also been careful not cooling it off to fast, as I took extra care of this expensive one. Really sad. And as I said, it’s the only cookware in my kitchen that has not stayed flat.


It’s strange, and warrants a phone call to your local Fissler dealer. Maybe you got a dud. I’m sure they can fix this issue for you.


----------



## damiano

btbyrd said:


> I'm curious what uses make copper worth paying for. My regular All-Clad is plenty responsive over gas and induction, and I don't know that copper would provide much of a real-world advantage there even if it's technically superior. Regular All-Clad also heats evenly enough for my purposes. I do have a few clad copper pieces, but it's mostly because I got a good deal on a quality pan than because I thought they were especially great performers relative to non-copper. I just don't see the point. I can understand shelling out $300 for some enameled cast iron or for a high end donabe or something, but copper frying pans aren't something I can get my head around.


A copper frying pan is just very versatile. It heats very evenly, more so than the Proline or enameled cast iron, but it’s also quick to react to temperature differences. And the crust you get on proteins is wonderful. Plus easy maintenance and life time durability.


----------



## damiano

This is still one of the best texts ever written on cookware.









Understanding Stovetop Cookware


Understanding Stovetop Cookware By Samuel Lloyd Kinsey (slkinsey) In various discussions about cookware over the years, I have found that many people care passionately about their cookware -- be it All-Clad, heirloom cast iron, heavy copper, or Calphalon -- but don’t really understand their cookw...




forums.egullet.org


----------



## McMan

If performance is a goal, +1 to carbon steel--whether DeBuyer or Paderno or even Mauviel, you're in there at ~$50-80. Buy a knife with the $200 you saved. Easy Peazy. Everybody should have a carbon steel pan.

If you don't have a good cast iron pan, then that's another way to plunk down some cash to one of the new spiffy makers (or, better still, to ebay to get an heirloom pan).

If you're after a saute pan, then I like Cuisinart French Classic more than All-Clad because they are slightly thicker. They're made in France and a great value (~$60); there was some discussion of these here a while ago--there's only a handful of pan factories in France, so the thinking was the Cusinart ones were made at the same place as 'better' (pricier) pans.

The spendy option--vintage copper that you send to get re-tinned. You'll often fined very thick old copper, but it ain't cheap...


----------



## Tristan

My fave pans are all carbon steel. De Buyer Mineral B does the job, but Blu Skillet makes me happier and Blanc Creative heritage line is my fave.
Have not used my All Clad copper core for ages.


----------



## evilgawd

Wahnamhong said:


> Ah okay, I don't know that market well. What are some of the prices you see for e.g. the Proline, Fissler, and Falk? And are you able to buy from European amazon sites? (for example www.amazon.de)



proline 11" is 260$ USD
Falk signature or copper core is 300$ USD
mauviel mcook ( 5 ply SS) 155$ USD


----------



## Slim278

Field Cast Iron makes some nice cast iron that is smoother and thinner than much of the new iron on the market. Not as low maintenance as stainless but I enjoy my cast iron.


----------



## btbyrd

Wahnamhong said:


> A copper frying pan is just very versatile. It heats very evenly, more so than the Proline or enameled cast iron, but it’s also quick to react to temperature differences. And the crust you get on proteins is wonderful. Plus easy maintenance and life time durability.



I get that it heats very evenly, but I'm questioning what advantage that has in real world applications over other good cookware. I also get that it reacts quickly to temperature differences, but so does my bottom-of-the-line All-Clad; if something looks like it's about to burn or boil over, turning the heat down results in an instant reaction when cooking over gas or with induction. I can't imagine copper is practically better in this respect either. The OP is cooking on electric, which is garbage for responsiveness regardless of the cookware being used. For crust on proteins, the main thing that matters is delivering a thermal-wallop, which can be easily achieved with thicker carbon steel, cast iron, or something like All-Clad D7. And I don't think that copper really qualifies as easy maintenance compared to stainless clad cookware. I remember someone asking culinary technologist Dave Arnold about copper cookware on an episode of Cooking Issues. He said that you should only buy it if you really like to clean things. That accords with my experience. They discolor very quickly, and that would drive me bonkers. The benefits, while there on paper, don't seem like they're worth the monetary or maintenance costs. And it's not especially more durable than All-Clad, carbon steel, or cast iron. I still don't know of an application where I'd strongly prefer a copper pan to an alternative. It may be marginally better than other cookware, but does that margin translate into something that's appreciably better in practice? 



McMan said:


> If performance is a goal, +1 to carbon steel-
> 
> If you don't have a good cast iron pan, then that's another way to plunk down some cash to one of the new spiffy makers (or, better still, to ebay to get an heirloom pan).
> 
> The spendy option--vintage copper that you send to get re-tinned. You'll often fined very thick old copper, but it ain't cheap...





Tristan said:


> My fave pans are all carbon steel. De Buyer Mineral B does the job, but Blu Skillet makes me happier and Blanc Creative heritage line is my fave.
> Have not used my All Clad copper core for ages.



Tinned copper is right out, since tin melts at 450F. But +1 on carbon steel and cast iron, though I don't see the practical point in paying a bunch of money for either. I'm partial to Darto carbon steel pans, since they're rivetless and don't cost an arm and a leg. The artisan brands like Blu Skillet sure are pretty, but I don't think that they perform any better than their rivals. If I had infinity billion dollars, I'd buy plenty of them for aesthetic reasons (but those aren't culinary reasons). It's like buying hand-forged nails over factory-produced nails.

For cast iron, I like Lodge just fine. It's thicker than vintage, but mass is why I reach for cast iron in the first place. It's not polished smooth, but I have not noticed an empirical difference in nonstick capability. I think most of the "pebbly surface = sticky surface" gossip is based on intuition rather than experience. At least, my experience doesn't reveal a difference. Maybe I'm just lucky.

The reactivity of cast iron and carbon steel is a slight liability. I've ruined more than one dinner by introducing acidic ingredients into the equation. This also stripped the seasoning, which was annoying and time-consuming to repair. That's where very thick clad cookware like D7 comes in handy. Massive but non-reactive for those occasions where you need both. I seldom need both of those properties at the same time, which is why I cook with carbon steel so often.

Anyway, I'm still not sure exactly what the OP is looking for in an upgrade from his All-Clad frying pan. He mentions getting some more heat responsiveness, which copper has... but he's also using an electric range and that negates most of those benefits (which were marginal in the first place). He also mentions that low maintenance would be nice, but copper isn't especially great in that regard either. But like others have suggested, if the OP doesn't have a carbon steel fry pan, that might be a good first step.


----------



## juice

btbyrd said:


> by introducing acidic ingredients into the equation. This also stripped the seasoning, which was annoying and time-consuming to repair.


Ah-hah, you're my wife posting here, I suspect.


----------



## rickbern

I really loved having thick disk bottomed pans when I used an electric stove. I don’t think copper is great with coil electric, it’s almost too conductive 

I have a Demeyere skillet and a Fissler Sauté pan now. I cook on gas but I’d think they’re both pretty good pans for an electric stove. 

love carbon steel but it wasn’t brilliant on electric.

Neither was all clad, I understand why you want to switch. The base on the demeyere is way thicker than all clad, I think it would preform way better. That’s my vote.


----------



## DrEriksson

Wahnamhong said:


> It’s strange, and warrants a phone call to your local Fissler dealer. Maybe you got a dud. I’m sure they can fix this issue for you.



This summer i tried to get it changed, but it was a bit over five years, so they didn’t want anything to do with it. Maybe five years is ok, but the Ikea pasta pot that I’ve got has been in my home for about 18 years... (Yeah, they are not used the same way. I know.)


----------



## rmrf

I've cooked on electric and right now I cook on induction. I have d5 all clad, tri-ply all clad, demeyere proline, lodge cast iron and Matfer bourgeat carbon steel. I'm a home chef so take my advice with a grain of salt.

In my opinion, there are two purposes for a fry pan: fast response to heat and heavy sear. Assuming the same stove, these are mutually exclusive attributes. You need a large thermal mass to get a good sear, but a large thermal mass by definition cannot react quickly to changes in heat. As such, you really are talking about two different fry pans. (There might be an exception here if you talk about woks. A high power burner will probably give you a good sear and have fast response times, but lets neglect that)

For fast response, I like thin carbon steel (like a wok) or all clad. My 12in all clad tri-ply is probably the pan I reach for most for this purpose. I can turn off the heat or put it on a cool burner and it cools fairly quickly. I can go from the oven to the stove and back again and it doesn't behave any differently than a half sheet pan. However, it sucks at searing. I can't get it hot enough to really put a dark hard sear on anything. If I'm making a pan sauce, sometimes I use it because I can turn off the heat and not burn the pan drippings.

For hard sear for like beef steaks or ahi or even searing meat for a beef stew, I like demeyere proline. On induction, demeyere proline gives a far superior sear to any of my enameled cast iron, lodge cast iron, or carbon steel pans. I suspect it is because my induction stove is far less even than a gas stove, but it might also be the thermal mass. If you cared, you can weigh your pans and remember that aluminum has roughly double the heat capacity per unit mass as iron. For the same thickness, iron will obviously be better as iron is roughly 3 times as dense as aluminum, but mass is what matters here. 

I looked it up, a lodge cast iron 12 in weighs ~3730 g while the demeyere proline weighs 2730 g. Al has a heat capacity of .9 J/gC, while iron has a heat capacity of .45 J/gC. So, the lodge cast iron can impart 1678 J/C while the demeyere proline can impart 2457 J/C to your food. So, my empirical observation that my demeyere proline can sear better is backed up with this back of the envelope calculation. FYI, copper has a lower heat capacity than cast iron which is why copper pans react so quickly.

This was a lot of words to say that if you want to upgrade, I would think about exactly what you want your fry pan to do. If you want to sear and like to use barkeeper's friend, I would get a demeyere proline 12.6in. I love mine and I use mine all the time. If you want something that reacts faster than all-clad, you probably need copper. Or you can try a wok.


edit: If you want a discount option, I really like my vollrath 14 in aluminum pan I got from a restaurant supply store. I can't use it on my induction stove, but its amazing on my grill. Its made of really thick aluminum and it sears pretty well. It cost ~$40, verses ~$200 for a demeyere proline.


----------



## Michi

To me, the quest for a single frying pan is a bit futile. I currently have a 12" Lodge cast iron, 12" Fissler stainless steel with a heavy base, and two non-stick pans (one high-quality 12" with a heavy base and a small and light el-cheapo from Ikea). I use all of them, but none of them is good at everything.

If I had to make do with only a single pan, I would go with stainless steel because that's the most versatile: no issues with acidic ingredients, and no issues with super-high heat. (But, of course, it has more issues with sticking than the others.)

Whatever you end up buying, make sure that it has an oven-proof handle and actually does fit into your oven cavity. It's really useful to be able to throw a pan into the oven instead of having to transfer the contents to some other dish first.


----------



## damiano

btbyrd said:


> I get that it heats very evenly, but I'm questioning what advantage that has in real world applications over other good cookware. I also get that it reacts quickly to temperature differences, but so does my bottom-of-the-line All-Clad; if something looks like it's about to burn or boil over, turning the heat down results in an instant reaction when cooking over gas or with induction. I can't imagine copper is practically better in this respect either. The OP is cooking on electric, which is garbage for responsiveness regardless of the cookware being used. For crust on proteins, the main thing that matters is delivering a thermal-wallop, which can be easily achieved with thicker carbon steel, cast iron, or something like All-Clad D7. And I don't think that copper really qualifies as easy maintenance compared to stainless clad cookware. I remember someone asking culinary technologist Dave Arnold about copper cookware on an episode of Cooking Issues. He said that you should only buy it if you really like to clean things. That accords with my experience. They discolor very quickly, and that would drive me bonkers. The benefits, while there on paper, don't seem like they're worth the monetary or maintenance costs. And it's not especially more durable than All-Clad, carbon steel, or cast iron. I still don't know of an application where I'd strongly prefer a copper pan to an alternative. It may be marginally better than other cookware, but does that margin translate into something that's appreciably better in practice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinned copper is right out, since tin melts at 450F. But +1 on carbon steel and cast iron, though I don't see the practical point in paying a bunch of money for either. I'm partial to Darto carbon steel pans, since they're rivetless and don't cost an arm and a leg. The artisan brands like Blu Skillet sure are pretty, but I don't think that they perform any better than their rivals. If I had infinity billion dollars, I'd buy plenty of them for aesthetic reasons (but those aren't culinary reasons). It's like buying hand-forged nails over factory-produced nails.
> 
> For cast iron, I like Lodge just fine. It's thicker than vintage, but mass is why I reach for cast iron in the first place. It's not polished smooth, but I have not noticed an empirical difference in nonstick capability. I think most of the "pebbly surface = sticky surface" gossip is based on intuition rather than experience. At least, my experience doesn't reveal a difference. Maybe I'm just lucky.
> 
> The reactivity of cast iron and carbon steel is a slight liability. I've ruined more than one dinner by introducing acidic ingredients into the equation. This also stripped the seasoning, which was annoying and time-consuming to repair. That's where very thick clad cookware like D7 comes in handy. Massive but non-reactive for those occasions where you need both. I seldom need both of those properties at the same time, which is why I cook with carbon steel so often.
> 
> Anyway, I'm still not sure exactly what the OP is looking for in an upgrade from his All-Clad frying pan. He mentions getting some more heat responsiveness, which copper has... but he's also using an electric range and that negates most of those benefits (which were marginal in the first place). He also mentions that low maintenance would be nice, but copper isn't especially great in that regard either. But like others have suggested, if the OP doesn't have a carbon steel fry pan, that might be a good first step.


Lots of good points. Let's discuss copper. I have been using Mauviel stainless steel lined 2.3mm thick copper pans for over a decade now. I have never put in any maintenance at all. Just washing with soap after use. Typically clean in 2 minutes, only downside not being dishwasher safe. I dropped my sauce pan at one point from 1 meter to a hard wooden floor: not a single dent nor scratch. One time I dry cooked this sauce pan for over an hour: simple cleaning removed all blackness. Believe me, these (older) ss-lined copper pans are probably some of the most rugged cookware out there. 

As for being an application where one would prefer copper, I'd say sauce pans given its responsiveness. For other applications there are typically other materials that work just as well, though copper will always for every application work good, just not the best sometimes. 

I've never cooked with an All-Clad so I cannot compare in detail. What I do know is that the All-Clad probably has around 2mm aluminum. Being so thin I can see how it would be very responsive, but it won't be as even heating as a 2.3mm copper pan. You can make the case that that's not required for a frying pan. 

By the way, I'm not advocating getting a copper frying pan for an electric stove, exactly for the reasons you mention. I'd probably go with something like the Paderno or Fissler paella pan, so thick aluminum disc bottom pans. Another option is the cookware line Accademia Lagofusion by Lagostina, that has both a thick aluminum bottom and clad sidewalls. With electric not being very responsive it helps for the heat to escape through the sidewalls, or you risk the bottom heating up continuously. On gas that's less of a problem.


----------



## evilgawd

Wow did not expect to get so many responses on this thread and to be honest I kind of expected you guys to convince me of the opposite lol. The use case for this pan is to be my primary pan , my go to . This is not for searing, I have cast iron . Think, I want to fry some veggies quickly or maybe a small batch of shrimps . Again, the goal was to get me somewhat of a "treat" and "upgrade" from my all clad 3 ply.

Should I just look at somewhat of a similar model with 5 ply instead of copper ? Or are there better option then All-Clad for 3 ply ? Mauviel Mcook ?

Thinking out loud here, maybe I should keep my frying pan , its old but in good shape and replace my warped saute pan

Again , thanks to all that replied, very instructive !!!


----------



## Rreidiii

rmrf said:


> I've cooked on electric and right now I cook on induction. I have d5 all clad, tri-ply all clad, demeyere proline, lodge cast iron and Matfer bourgeat carbon steel. I'm a home chef so take my advice with a grain of salt.
> 
> In my opinion, there are two purposes for a fry pan: fast response to heat and heavy sear. Assuming the same stove, these are mutually exclusive attributes. You need a large thermal mass to get a good sear, but a large thermal mass by definition cannot react quickly to changes in heat. As such, you really are talking about two different fry pans. (There might be an exception here if you talk about woks. A high power burner will probably give you a good sear and have fast response times, but lets neglect that)
> 
> For fast response, I like thin carbon steel (like a wok) or all clad. My 12in all clad tri-ply is probably the pan I reach for most for this purpose. I can turn off the heat or put it on a cool burner and it cools fairly quickly. I can go from the oven to the stove and back again and it doesn't behave any differently than a half sheet pan. However, it sucks at searing. I can't get it hot enough to really put a dark hard sear on anything. If I'm making a pan sauce, sometimes I use it because I can turn off the heat and not burn the pan drippings.
> 
> For hard sear for like beef steaks or ahi or even searing meat for a beef stew, I like demeyere proline. On induction, demeyere proline gives a far superior sear to any of my enameled cast iron, lodge cast iron, or carbon steel pans. I suspect it is because my induction stove is far less even than a gas stove, but it might also be the thermal mass. If you cared, you can weigh your pans and remember that aluminum has roughly double the heat capacity per unit mass as iron. For the same thickness, iron will obviously be better as iron is roughly 3 times as dense as aluminum, but mass is what matters here.
> 
> I looked it up, a lodge cast iron 12 in weighs ~3730 g while the demeyere proline weighs 2730 g. Al has a heat capacity of .9 J/gC, while iron has a heat capacity of .45 J/gC. So, the lodge cast iron can impart 1678 J/C while the demeyere proline can impart 2457 J/C to your food. So, my empirical observation that my demeyere proline can sear better is backed up with this back of the envelope calculation. FYI, copper has a lower heat capacity than cast iron which is why copper pans react so quickly.
> 
> This was a lot of words to say that if you want to upgrade, I would think about exactly what you want your fry pan to do. If you want to sear and like to use barkeeper's friend, I would get a demeyere proline 12.6in. I love mine and I use mine all the time. If you want something that reacts faster than all-clad, you probably need copper. Or you can try a wok.
> 
> 
> edit: If you want a discount option, I really like my vollrath 14 in aluminum pan I got from a restaurant supply store. I can't use it on my induction stove, but its amazing on my grill. Its made of really thick aluminum and it sears pretty well. It cost ~$40, verses ~$200 for a demeyere proline.



+1 I’ve been cooking professionally for 30+ years and I have never worked in a kitchen that had any high end or expensive cookware. Just buy an aluminum vollrath and get a lodge cast iron pan and cook like a pro.


----------



## rickbern

Rreidiii said:


> +1 I’ve been cooking professionally for 30+ years and I have never worked in a kitchen that had any high end or expensive cookware. Just buy an aluminum vollrath and get a lodge cast iron pan and cook like a pro.


Home cooking is different. We've got all day to simmer tomatoes, both those pans would react like crazy. We have a tendency to use less fat too.


----------



## LostHighway

evilgawd said:


> Wow did not expect to get so many responses on this thread and to be honest I kind of expected you guys to convince me of the opposite lol. The use case for this pan is to be my primary pan , my go to . This is not for searing, I have cast iron . Think, I want to fry some veggies quickly or maybe a small batch of shrimps . Again, the goal was to get me somewhat of a "treat" and "upgrade" from my all clad 3 ply.
> 
> Should I just look at somewhat of a similar model with 5 ply instead of copper ? Or are there better option then All-Clad for 3 ply ? Mauviel Mcook ?
> 
> Thinking out loud here, maybe I should keep my frying pan , its old but in good shape and replace my warped saute pan
> 
> Again , thanks to all that replied, very instructive !!!



Per @btbyrd and @rmrf your 3 ply All-Clad frypan is just fine, especially since you have a heavier pan for searing. Your electric cooktop is really your greatest limitation.
What might you want in a saute' pan?


----------



## Rreidiii

rickbern said:


> Home cooking is different. We've got all day to simmer tomatoes, both those pans would react like crazy. We have a tendency to use less fat too.



You’re going simmer tomatoes all day in a frying pan? I’d use a stock pot for something like that just get an anodized pot.
I’m just saying that expensive equipment is not going to make you cook better. Now if you’ve watched 1,000 hours of food network that might qualify you as a bona fide chef. Just kidding of course.
I always found it amusing to see my students get these expensive pieces of equipment and later to find out they don’t last in the industry.


----------



## rickbern

Sorry, I'm more of a saute pan user than a skillet guy.

But I'm all excited because I just started cooking in clay. Just bought a 23cm cazuela, imported from Spain, cost me $13. Nonreactive!

edit-Still, I think all clad isn't all that great on coil electric. I cooked on that for 20 years, always used disk bottom pans, never reached for my all-clads. I think the Demeyere is "almost" a disk base pan because the base is so thick.


----------



## damiano

evilgawd said:


> Wow did not expect to get so many responses on this thread and to be honest I kind of expected you guys to convince me of the opposite lol. The use case for this pan is to be my primary pan , my go to . This is not for searing, I have cast iron . Think, I want to fry some veggies quickly or maybe a small batch of shrimps . Again, the goal was to get me somewhat of a "treat" and "upgrade" from my all clad 3 ply.
> 
> Should I just look at somewhat of a similar model with 5 ply instead of copper ? Or are there better option then All-Clad for 3 ply ? Mauviel Mcook ?
> 
> Thinking out loud here, maybe I should keep my frying pan , its old but in good shape and replace my warped saute pan
> 
> Again , thanks to all that replied, very instructive !!!


From what you are saying my suggestion would be to look into a saute pan. In an earlier post I had mentioned my tip for you but I’ll repeat it here. Look into Lagostina Accademia Lagofusion, a hybrid line with both a thick aluminum bottom (6mm) and clad sidewalls. They have a 26 cm diameter pan which sounds like a great fit. I’ve heard great user feedback of someone using this on her electric coil stovetop, coming from Demeyere. Should set you back around 200 euro all in at most, buying from e.g. amazon.de Made in Italy too. See Lagostina 011115031826 accademia lagofusion stoofpan deksel roestvrij staal 26 cm: Amazon.de: Küche & Haushalt


----------



## josemartinlopez

evilgawd said:


> The use case for this pan is to be my primary pan , my go to . This is not for searing, I have cast iron . Think, I want to fry some veggies quickly or maybe a small batch of shrimps . Again, the goal was to get me somewhat of a "treat" and "upgrade" from my all clad 3 ply.


If you want to give yourself a treat--yes, restaurants use simple aluminum pans--you can try the Demeyere Proline or a tin-lined (not stainless steel lined) copper pan. 

My daily pan is a 2mm copper pan from Navarini, used mainly because it heats up quickly and is very responsive to changes in heat. No added maintenance beyond cleaning with a blue Scotch Brite, using only wood or plastic spatulas, and making sure not to heat up the pan empty.

The Demeyere Proline is more like using a thick cast iron pan.


----------



## tcmx3

Im going to go against the grain here and say that IMO nothing is actually an "upgrade" over the plain-Jane d3 all-clad 12".

I find it to be the best balance and if I could only keep one of my pans, which these days include Matfer carbons, de Buyer Copper and a Stargazer, it would be the All-Clad.

That being said if I owned an All-Clad and were looking to get a second pan, probably it would be a Matfer, despite the fact that it's the cheapest 12" I own by some margin. IMO copper tends to lend itself better to things I'd typically make in saucepans or smaller pans, and cast iron is as overrated as bacon (ie it's very good but come on).

to be honest if I had a bad stove (ie anything other than a high powered gas one) I'd actually seriously consider putting that couple of hundred dollars you might spend on a big copper pan towards a Breville Control Freak.


----------



## Corradobrit1

McMan said:


> If you're after a saute pan, then I like Cuisinart French Classic more than All-Clad because they are slightly thicker. They're made in France and a great value (~$60); there was some discussion of these here a while ago--there's only a handful of pan factories in France, so the thinking was the Cusinart ones were made at the same place as 'better' (pricier) pans.


Completely agree. I've slowly replaced older pans with the Cuisinart French Classic line. I now have 7 pans, 6 SS and 1 non-stick and for the money you can't go wrong. Next purchase will be a large stock pot and a crepe pan. The handles are one of my fav features and the heat transfer properties are second to none, including my copper core All Clads which I think are over-hyped here in the US with the worst handles.


----------



## tcmx3

Corradobrit1 said:


> Completely agree. I've slowly replaced older pans with the Cuisinart French Classic line. I now have 7 pans, 6 SS and 1 non-stick and for the money you can't go wrong. Next purchase will be a large stock pot and a crepe pan. The handles are one of my fav features and the heat transfer properties are second to none, including my copper core All Clads which I think are over-hyped here in the US with the worst handles.



those don't look bad, actually I had to get a new 4qt saucepan recently and might have gone with this instead of the Dremeyere I eventually bought had I seen it, although two things strike me as odd:

no helper on a 4 qt?
also "French Classic" is an odd thing to call a tri-ply stainless pan. wouldnt it be American Classic?


----------



## Moooza

If you want an all-rounder, check out Hestan nanobond. It's my main go-to.


----------



## Michi

Mauviel m-cook are nice, too. Not cheap though.


----------



## Tristan

longshot: anyone has experience with the Alessi Edo range?


----------



## Geigs

My favourite pans are all from Solid teknics. Seamless wrought iron, behaves like cast but half the weight. I got rid of all my other pans- these are indestructible, I've used mine camping ion an open fire and came home and fried eggs. 



https://www.solidteknics.com/shop?gclid=Cj0KCQjwxNT8BRD9ARIsAJ8S5xZRkYeRbkpFC7lV_-9oHicTdmyQfcDhSA19PkaCGijuj_oD4T_tB5QaAqgIEALw_wcB


----------



## juice

Geigs said:


> My favourite pans are all from Solid teknics.


the same, very much so.


----------



## ptolemy

I think this subject is both complex and simple. I just think it depends what you're looking for, how anal retentive you re (detail oriented) and how much you want to spend. If you want the very best, then you have to hunt for old 4mm thick pots and get it silver lined... probably cost you 6 month time and $1k+ but then you'll truly get the best performing saute pan... if you're going strictly by metal properties.. it will also weight 15lbs though...

The key is actually is in balance... which is the ratio between weight, size, thickness of the pan to performance of the pan. Copper pan will simply offer better performance than others, but it will weight 2x more. If you want SS pant hat performs close to cast iron (even heating and keeping heat the best). and don't want cast iron, then demeyere 7-ply or all-clad d7 is your best bet. 

the bonded 2.3mm + .2mm ss/copper pans from 3major makers (falk, mauviel, matfer) will offer better/even heating, but probably won't keep heat better, but may reheat faster but are more costly... then, there is weight and copper maintenance (if you want thing shiny)

I would break it down this way:

below $200, d7 is best pan
below $300 demeyere 7ply
copper any of the 3
highest end / unicorn is hard to find, but they exist. 

but, as someone said, d3 is likely the best pan for all or mc2, both are SS with 2mm or so of alum in the middle. The most important, obv is proper preheating (most ppl don't get them hot enough), and proper ventilation/hood (most ppl don't have proper hood). those 2 will be the limiting factors between crust creation, even browning, and proper ventilation (not to smoke up your house)

then there are bottom clad pots... with some at thick as 7mm... but that's a diff story


----------



## MarcelNL

BTW ; plenty hoods are capable enough in theory but handicapped by not letting fresh air in, or impairing flow by too narrow ducts/many bends.



juice said:


> the same, very much so.


their website is only showing beige food, so that figures ;-)


----------



## juice

MarcelNL said:


> their website is only showing beige food, so that figures ;-)


#BeigeFTW


----------



## hijackn

We have an old all-clad stainless lined aluminum, a de buyer carbon steel, lots of old griswold cast iron, and a 2mm thick mafter bourgeat copper sautee pan. We never use the copper. The de buyer does almost everything. That being said, most of cooking is pretty run of the mill/pedestrian. We aren't doing fine dining meals at home.


----------



## jacko9

I stopped using most of my All Clad pans and switched to Cast Iron on my flat top electric stove. I started with one size and then eventually bought the set of Field Skillets. These are well made, machines interior surfaces and weigh less than most competitors skillets for the same size.









The Field Company - Smoother, Lighter Cast Iron Skillets


The Field Company manufactures and sells smoother, lighter cast iron skillets reminiscent of the greatest vintage pans. Made in America.




fieldcompany.com


----------



## tcmx3

jacko9 said:


> I stopped using most of my All Clad pans and switched to Cast Iron on my flat top electric stove. I started with one size and then eventually bought the set of Field Skillets. These are well made, machines interior surfaces and weigh less than most competitors skillets for the same size.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Field Company - Smoother, Lighter Cast Iron Skillets
> 
> 
> The Field Company manufactures and sells smoother, lighter cast iron skillets reminiscent of the greatest vintage pans. Made in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fieldcompany.com



afaik the Field is the closest to vintage. it's certainly the closest I've seen.

I really cant imagine something better for the person who wants a Griswold without shelling out equivalent money on someone else's used pan that's been beaten on for 80 years. despite what some people seem to think, Ive seen a fair amount of ruined cast iron.

it's nice there's Field, Stargazer, the Aus-Ion stuff, butterpad (?), etc. out now. it seems like 5 years ago if you wanted a decent pan to sear your choices were vintage or carbon steel.


----------



## juice

redisburning said:


> the Aus-Ion stuff


I've got 6-7 of these, and two more coming from the latest kickstarter. Love them.


----------



## Michi

juice said:


> I've got 6-7 of these, and two more coming from the latest kickstarter. Love them.


Why so many pans? I don't think I've ever needed more than three…


----------



## juice

Michi said:


> Why so many pans? I don't think I've ever needed more than three…


Different sizes, depths, and so on. One is a wok. We often use 3-4/meal.


----------



## MarcelNL

juice said:


> Different sizes, depths, and so on. One is a wok. We often use 3-4/meal.



all the time you had me thinking the beiginess came from putting everything in one pot


----------



## juice

MarcelNL said:


> all the time you had me thinking the beiginess came from putting everything in one pot


I have learned from the #BeigeLion that #Beige is not so much a colour as an attitude, a vibe, and we can attain that that in many different ways.


----------



## MarcelNL

While writing this I was multitasking on an audio page ordering some fairy dust wire and stuff, I had to look several times to see that you are not Mr Duluend in disguise as Aussie...if you are I want a hefty discount


----------



## juice

MarcelNL said:


> I had to look several times to see that you are not Mr Duluend in disguise as Aussie...if you are I want a hefty discount


I've never had the ability to sell anything like the audio make-believe stuff that gets sold to the gullible


----------



## rickbern

Corradobrit1 said:


> Completely agree. I've slowly replaced older pans with the Cuisinart French Classic line. I now have 7 pans, 6 SS and 1 non-stick and for the money you can't go wrong. Next purchase will be a large stock pot and a crepe pan. The handles are one of my fav features and the heat transfer properties are second to none, including my copper core All Clads which I think are over-hyped here in the US with the worst handles.


I have a cuisinart French classic sauté pan. Good value. Brought it to my gfs house, replaced it with a fissler at home. I think the fissler is a worthwhile upgrade over the cuisinart for the way I cook. But I like disk bottoms better than multiply.


----------



## kennyc

Has anyone used any of the textured pans? size/shape/brand aside, what are the pros & cons of the texturing? I've seen them so far from DeBuyer and Ballarini

example:








de Buyer - 11


Mineral B Element is a robust, durable pro iron pan with a bees wax base for anti-oxidation protection, favoured seasoning, and improved non-stick qualities. The more the pan is used, the better the performance. The darker it becomes the better it is for natural nonstick properties. Round fry...




www.cookstore.ca


----------



## rickbern

kennyc said:


> Has anyone used any of the textured pans? size/shape/brand aside, what are the pros & cons of the texturing? I've seen them so far from DeBuyer and Ballarini
> 
> example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> de Buyer - 11
> 
> 
> Mineral B Element is a robust, durable pro iron pan with a bees wax base for anti-oxidation protection, favoured seasoning, and improved non-stick qualities. The more the pan is used, the better the performance. The darker it becomes the better it is for natural nonstick properties. Round fry...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cookstore.ca


My nephew had one of those. I think they’re a one trick pony, more suitable for a restaurant than a home cook. But if you relish that pattern on your proteins, give it a go.


----------



## billyO

If you're still in the market, I'll throw another option into the ring: Home - Hand Forged | Carbon Steel | Northwest Skillet Company
Peter makes some really high quality stuff.


----------



## Chuckles

The chefs pan from this Northwest Skillet Company looks really cool. Over budget and not what you are looking for but I want it now.

Finding a good fry pan for an electric range is a tough one. Like picking the right knife to use on a glass cutting board.


----------



## billyO

Chuckles said:


> Like picking the right knife to use on a glass cutting board.


My pick would be: "Not mine"


----------



## TB_London

Enjoying my m250c mauviel, heats quickly and super evenly. With stainless lining makes a great companion to my Alex Pole carbon skillet


----------



## Striker78

I recently went through a similar weighing of the pros and cons of cookware and wound up buying the Demeyere Industry 5 set from Sur La Table. It heats evenly. It cleans easily as long as you let it head up first. No rivets to clean around. I use Bar Keeper's Friend and the pan looks brand new every time. It's thick enough that it won't warp. Thick enough to keep higher heat when you put meat on. No need to season. The only downside for me was cost. Cutlery and More has the 5-plus line (which is just a different styling of the Industry-5) on sale.









Demeyere Frying Pan, 11" with Lid - Stainless Steel 5-ply Skillet | Cutlery and More


Shop for Demeyere 5-Plus Fry Pans & Skillets at Cutlery and More. We are your source for everything Demeyere with FREE shipping on orders over $49. We are experts in kitchen knives & cookware.




www.cutleryandmore.com


----------



## rmrf

Striker78 said:


> I recently went through a similar weighing of the pros and cons of cookware and wound up buying the Demeyere Industry 5 set from Sur La Table. It heats evenly. It cleans easily as long as you let it head up first. No rivets to clean around. I use Bar Keeper's Friend and the pan looks brand new every time. It's thick enough that it won't warp. Thick enough to keep higher heat when you put meat on. No need to season. The only downside for me was cost. Cutlery and More has the 5-plus line (which is just a different styling of the Industry-5) on sale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demeyere Frying Pan, 11" with Lid - Stainless Steel 5-ply Skillet | Cutlery and More
> 
> 
> Shop for Demeyere 5-Plus Fry Pans & Skillets at Cutlery and More. We are your source for everything Demeyere with FREE shipping on orders over $49. We are experts in kitchen knives & cookware.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cutleryandmore.com



I also love my demeyere pans, especially for searing. Do you use gas, electric, or induction?

How fast does the industry 5 heat up compared to other pans? In particular, if you have a tri-ply from all clad, a carbon steel from de buyer or matfer, or a cast iron (I would say my demeyere 7 ply takes longer to heat than my cast iron). 

I wouldn't rely on the pan to not warp under abuse as I was able to warp my demeyere pro. I might have gotten a dud, but it worth knowing what not to do. To warp the pan, heat it very hot for searing meat, then pour a cup of cold liquid into the pan. It will warp enough that it is detectable on a granite countertop or a glass top stove. I've deglazed since then using 1/4 cup of liquid and waiting for the pan to cool a little.


----------



## Striker78

Gas.

Honestly, I don't have other good pans to compare too. Everything else I've used has been fairly cheap. For me, more important that how quickly it heats up, is how evenly and how much energy it has to transfer into the meat to produce browning/fond.

Thanks for the tip on warping.


----------



## kennyc

rickbern said:


> My nephew had one of those. I think they’re a one trick pony, more suitable for a restaurant than a home cook. But if you relish that pattern on your proteins, give it a go.


is that all then? the grooves don't look very deep - i have no intention to use it for searing similar to my cast-iron grill pan (~1/2" deep grooves). The only reason i'm considering this over the smooth one is the price + availability


----------



## Nemo

Geigs said:


> My favourite pans are all from Solid teknics. Seamless wrought iron, behaves like cast but half the weight. I got rid of all my other pans- these are indestructible, I've used mine camping ion an open fire and came home and fried eggs.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.solidteknics.com/shop?gclid=Cj0KCQjwxNT8BRD9ARIsAJ8S5xZRkYeRbkpFC7lV_-9oHicTdmyQfcDhSA19PkaCGijuj_oD4T_tB5QaAqgIEALw_wcB


I was always a bit skeptical about them. I read that the brains behind them also inflicted Furi knives on us. Worst ever HT of a Japanese Molybdenum Steel.

Maybe I should give the solid Technics a go... ???


----------



## rickbern

kennyc said:


> is that all then? the grooves don't look very deep - i have no intention to use it for searing similar to my cast-iron grill pan (~1/2" deep grooves). The only reason i'm considering this over the smooth one is the price + availability


I’d definitely go with the smooth one


----------



## juice

Nemo said:


> I was always a bit skeptical about them. I read that the brains behind them also inflicted Furi knives on us. Worst ever HT of a Japanese Molybdenum Steel.


I have both the pans and (some of) the knives. The pans are as good as the knives are bad.


----------



## Twigg

To touch on the cast iron skillets for a moment I will add this. I have used skillets from Smithey, Finex and a few others, but favor my 12" Lodge. I bought my 12" Lodge 7 or 8 years ago with the factory applied seasoning for something like $40. I took it home and went to work on the inside with a wire disc, flapper wheel and sanding disc. When I was finished, I had the rough surface on the exterior with the factory coating (it is a very durable coating) and a smooth inside. After cleaning the inside thoroughly, I stuck it in the oven and set it to 450F. After it was up to temp, I wiped a very thin layer of vegetable oil on it and baked it for another hour. I repeated this 3 more times and allowed the pan to cool in the oven. This left a dark, golden finish on the inside. I have been adding to the seasoning through cooking ever since. It is super black now and still very smooth. I have $40, 30mins sanding and whatever time the whole oven seasoning start took. I can't see spending the money for a "higher end" model. I think the little bit of time I put into made it more "mine".


----------



## rmrf

Twigg said:


> I took it home and went to work on the inside with a wire disc, flapper wheel and sanding disc. When I was finished, I had the rough surface on the exterior with the factory coating (it is a very durable coating) and a smooth inside. ... This left a dark, golden finish on the inside. I have been adding to the seasoning through cooking ever since. It is super black now and still very smooth.



Do you find the sanding makes a big difference in performance or is it an aesthetics thing? I'm not particularly happy with the performance of my cast iron or carbon steel pans compared to stainless steel given the hype around cast iron / carbon steel. I always wonder if its just because I didn't season them right from the beginning.


----------



## Twigg

Lodge comes with a rough finish from casting. By sanding the metal smooth, it aides in the non-stick qualities when combined with seasoning. If you use a Lodge pan with factory seasoning rough finish, food will stick to it much more, until the crevices fill with carbon. 

Your carbon pans should be smooth from factory, so maybe it is the seasoning. My carbon skillet can fry eggs with no sticking easily.


----------



## btbyrd

I have long suspected that a lot of the "bumpy surfaces are stickier" theory is grounded in intuition rather than experience. My Lodge is just as non-stick as my smooth vintage cast iron and contemporary carbon steel. If you can't fry eggs in a Lodge without it sticking, you're doing something wrong.


----------



## tcmx3

rmrf said:


> Do you find the sanding makes a big difference in performance or is it an aesthetics thing? I'm not particularly happy with the performance of my cast iron or carbon steel pans compared to stainless steel given the hype around cast iron / carbon steel. I always wonder if its just because I didn't season them right from the beginning.



Maybe you just prefer cooking on stainless?

I definitely do. It's my favorite pan material, whether it's all-clad or demeyere


----------



## rickbern

We had a thread about carbon steel seasoning. I’m convinced the difference between success and failure is getting the pan to the correct temperature to polymerize the oil. And getting the oil spread super thin. 






Carbon Steel (pan) maintenance


In another thread we got a little sidetracked talking about carbon steel pans, I thought I'd start a maintenance thread. Sorry, nothing sexy here like jnats, just squeeze bottles and salt. There was mention of the Cook's Illustrated initial seasoning procedure with potato skins, here's the...




www.kitchenknifeforums.com


----------



## Twigg

I have used rough finish and the smooth finish. I can make the rough finish work, heat and liberal applications of fat/oil. I have found that the smooth finish I did and have used for several years works better and is more non-stick. I know there are a lot of debates and articles comparing the surfaces, but I have found that smoothing, then at-home seasoning worked better for me. It produced a surface similar to a seasoned carbon skillet in regard to being non-stick.


----------



## rmrf

That was a good read. I think I seasoned my carbon steel during the flaxseed oil craze. Its a lot more splotchy and uneven than everyone else's. Maybe I'll sand it down and try again.


----------



## rmrf

tcmx3 said:


> Maybe you just prefer cooking on stainless?
> 
> I definitely do. It's my favorite pan material, whether it's all-clad or demeyere


I suspect that about myself. I do want to make sure I'm not comparing the best stainless with the worst carbon/cast iron.


----------



## tcmx3

rmrf said:


> That was a good read. I think I seasoned my carbon steel during the flaxseed oil craze. Its a lot more splotchy and uneven than everyone else's. Maybe I'll sand it down and try again.



no need to sand.

either cook tomatos in it for 15 minutes or nuke it in the self cleaning cycle of your onion.

I like grapeseed oil, and I make sure my pan _looks_ dry before applying heat.


----------



## Twigg

tcmx3 said:


> no need to sand.
> 
> either cook tomatos in it for 15 minutes or nuke it in the self cleaning cycle of your onion.
> 
> I like grapeseed oil, and I make sure my pan _looks_ dry before applying heat.


That will definately eat off the factory seasoning, but won't effect the rough cast metal.


----------



## rickbern

Try to run the heat up a bit and keep the oil amount ridiculously small. Drops. 

If it’s smooth just keep going. The only reason to knock the seasoning off is if it’s rough. In the first post I talk about giving my pan a facial. Try that first


----------



## tcmx3

Twigg said:


> That will definately eat off the factory seasoning, but won't effect the rough cast metal.



I think he's talking about carbon. Do any of the major carbon pans come with a rough surface? I know matfer, de buyer, mauviel etc are all pretty smooth from the factory.


----------



## Twigg

tcmx3 said:


> I think he's talking about carbon. Do any of the major carbon pans come with a rough surface? I know matfer, de buyer, mauviel etc are all pretty smooth from the factory.


Oh okay. I didn't realize he was referring to carbon. I have never seen a rough finished carbon pan.


----------



## juice

tcmx3 said:


> or nuke it in the self cleaning cycle of your onion.


This sounds like fun, let us know how it works


----------



## jacko9

I replied earlier recommending Field Cast Iron for the weight, finish and compatibility with my All-Clad Lids. I see a lot of recommendation for Carbon Steel Skillets and I was pretty interested until I noticed the length of the handles. We have a small home kitchen and store our cook ware in the bottom pull out cabinet and those long handles just won't fit for us. I have no wall space to hang them since our kitchen is pretty small. I hear the comments about the Field skillets losing their seasoning with acidy foods but it really hasn't been a problem restoring the finish by just using them a few times. Good luck with your selection.


----------



## Michi

jacko9 said:


> I see a lot of recommendation for Carbon Steel Skillets and I was pretty interested until I noticed the length of the handles.


A few minutes with a hacksaw and some sandpaper will fix that.


----------



## jacko9

Michi said:


> A few minutes with a hacksaw and some sandpaper will fix that.


Yeah you're right and I could do that easily but, one other thing I haven't mentioned before is that I have a glass flat top electric stove and I would have to find a flat bottom skillet that won't warp. Still looking I guess.


----------



## Colorado_cutter

btbyrd said:


> I have long suspected that a lot of the "bumpy surfaces are stickier" theory is grounded in intuition rather than experience. My Lodge is just as non-stick as my smooth vintage cast iron and contemporary carbon steel. If you can't fry eggs in a Lodge without it sticking, you're doing something wrong.



That has been my experience as well. I've got cast iron from the 1930s, 1950s, 1990s, and current day. The couple of vintage pieces I have are smoother, but they don't seem to be any more non-stick. Mostly, how non-stick they are depends on how much I use them. I've got a couple of modern Lodge 12" skillets that I use all the time, and they're quite non-stick. I used my sister's All-Clad skillet to cook some scrambled eggs a while back. They stuck like a mofo, even with my preferred "low heat, stir a lot, cook until just set" technique. Scrambled eggs stick a bit on my cast iron. Fried eggs don't stick at all. My preferences might be different with a different stove, but I love my cast iron in combination with a high-output gas stove.


----------



## tcmx3

Colorado_cutter said:


> That has been my experience as well. I've got cast iron from the 1930s, 1950s, 1990s, and current day. The couple of vintage pieces I have are smoother, but they don't seem to be any more non-stick. Mostly, how non-stick they are depends on how much I use them. I've got a couple of modern Lodge 12" skillets that I use all the time, and they're quite non-stick. I used my sister's All-Clad skillet to cook some scrambled eggs a while back. They stuck like a mofo, even with my preferred "low heat, stir a lot, cook until just set" technique. Scrambled eggs stick a bit on my cast iron. Fried eggs don't stick at all. My preferences might be different with a different stove, but I love my cast iron in combination with a high-output gas stove.



foods with a tendency to stick and need low heat, like scrambled eggs, do do better on materials other than stainless. I would definitely agree with that. although fwiw I can do a french omelette in one if Im careful. 

unfortunately there is no one pan that does it all. 

for me it's worth having cast iron just to fry, stainless for most other stuff, and carbon for crepes/pancakes/tortillas. though again if I had to pick one and one only it would be stainless. fwiw Im also using gas.


----------



## rstl87

Striker78 said:


> I recently went through a similar weighing of the pros and cons of cookware and wound up buying the Demeyere Industry 5 set from Sur La Table. It heats evenly. It cleans easily as long as you let it head up first. No rivets to clean around. I use Bar Keeper's Friend and the pan looks brand new every time. It's thick enough that it won't warp. Thick enough to keep higher heat when you put meat on. No need to season. The only downside for me was cost. Cutlery and More has the 5-plus line (which is just a different styling of the Industry-5) on sale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demeyere Frying Pan, 11" with Lid - Stainless Steel 5-ply Skillet | Cutlery and More
> 
> 
> Shop for Demeyere 5-Plus Fry Pans & Skillets at Cutlery and More. We are your source for everything Demeyere with FREE shipping on orders over $49. We are experts in kitchen knives & cookware.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cutleryandmore.com


+1 to the Industry5. I have the 11” and a couple other pieces and have been happy with them. They clean well without rivets and while not a responsive to heat changes as copper, I haven’t had an issue with this (on gas). When I get a 12” I will likely go Proline because I am intrigued by it and keep thinking about it as the “ultimate” pan... but not anytime soon.


----------



## orangehero

rstl87 said:


> +1 to the Industry5. I have the 11” and a couple other pieces and have been happy with them. They clean well without rivets and while not a responsive to heat changes as copper, I haven’t had an issue with this (on gas). When I get a 12” I will likely go Proline because I am intrigued by it and keep thinking about it as the “ultimate” pan... but not anytime soon.



The demeyere 7 ply skillets are thick, heavy, and sexy. Ultimate SS pans IMO. I liked the Zwilling Sensation pans when zwilling bought demeyere but unfortunately they are discontinued.


----------



## rstl87

orangehero said:


> The demeyere 7 ply skillets are thick, heavy, and sexy. Ultimate SS pans IMO. I liked the Zwilling Sensation pans when zwilling bought demeyere but unfortunately they are discontinued.


Just ordered one


----------



## coxhaus

I have a de Buyer 12-inch pan that is seasoned real well as I can even cook chili with tomatoes in it with no problem. It took a while to get seasoned well as I thought it was, then something would mess it up but lately, I can't seem to mess it up. It seems to heat up faster than cast iron as I have a lot of cast iron pans. I like my 15-inch cast iron to sear with as it is thicker than the smaller ones. I have a smoker and outside grill so I sear very little meat anymore, only tuna nowadays.


----------



## Jovidah

De Buyers are great but I wouldn't universally recommend them. Carbon steel doesn't have the best heat conductivity and on crappy / electric stoves it shows. On gas they're awesome.
Cast iron has that same problem, but most of them tend to be thicker so it's less noticable / problematic.
Seasoning shouldn't really take long if it's done right the first time.


----------



## tomsch

Awesome seasoning! I had a few De Buyers that I ended up giving them to my daughter since I found I was either using stainless or cast iron. I'm sure that if I would have spent more time seasoning and cooking in mine I may have worked it into my home cooking routine.


----------



## SeattleB

Setting aside the debate about copper pans versus other types, I wanted to share a discovery I made about keeping the copper bright. I've been using the heavyweight traditional Mauviel pans for about 20 years but I just learned this, so maybe others don't know the trick. 

Flitz makes a great tarnish removing spray. The trick is to warm the pan. Heat some water in a saucepan (this dampens the heating so it's evenly warm all around). When it gets warm enough that you can still stand to put your fingers in the water, dump out the water and it's ready to polish. Spray some Flitz on a wet kitchen sponge (better to put it on the sponge than the pan). Then just wipe the copper. Keep wiping. The goal is not to use abrasion to get off the patina. The patina is being removed by the chemicals so our aim is to keep moving so there are fresh chemicals in contact with the copper. Do this until the pan is bright. 

If the pan has a strong patina it will take a couple of applications. If you want a mirror polish you'll have to use Flitz metal polish or Wenol and that takes a lot more elbow grease and it's really not worth it. A perfectly mirror-polished pan will be less than perfect in a week or two. That 2 week to 8 week color range is fine for most people. [Are ya cookin' or are ya displayin'?]. In that range it takes only two minutes to brighten up a pan.

A few notes:

Patina on copper is like patina on knives. Some like it, some don't. I've gone back and forth over the years. Don't sweat it.

What puts patina on pans the fastest is water in the sink. Put a pan there and let it get splashed with water, food bits, etc. and it will patina in a couple of dinners. I often wash and dry the pan immediately, or put a little water and soap in it and set it on the counter, making sure the outside is dry. If it's dry it will sit there happily overnight without affecting the color.

I don't think it's worth removing the patina on saute pans. The high heat can turn the copper brown in one use, so just let the thing mature into a nice deep brown. Throw a thin coat of flaxseed oil or sesame oil on it and it will be pretty in its own way. 

Roasting pans fall in the middle. The heat is high enough that it will turn color far faster than a saucepan but slower than a saute. I'm not likely to leave it in the sink so that helps prevent patina. OTOH that thing is over 10 pounds with a lot of copper to clean. I'll do it only when inspiration strikes, which isn't often. BTW, mine has tin on the inside that that stuff is the most non-stick of anything I've ever seen. Roasted potatoes turn golden brown on the pan-side and they don't stick at all. 

I don't bother to polish the bottoms. Ever.

www.amazon.com/Flitz-BC-01806-Instant-Tarnish/dp/B002V4VLOC


----------



## rickbern

SeattleB said:


> Setting aside the debate about copper pans versus other types, I wanted to share a discovery I made about keeping the copper bright. I've been using the heavyweight traditional Mauviel pans for about 20 years but I just learned this, so maybe others don't know the trick.
> 
> Flitz makes a great tarnish removing spray. The trick is to warm the pan. Heat some water in a saucepan (this dampens the heating so it's evenly warm all around). When it gets warm enough that you can still stand to put your fingers in the water, dump out the water and it's ready to polish. Spray some Flitz on a wet kitchen sponge (better to put it on the sponge than the pan). Then just wipe the copper. Keep wiping. The goal is not to use abrasion to get off the patina. The patina is being removed by the chemicals so our aim is to keep moving so there are fresh chemicals in contact with the copper. Do this until the pan is bright.
> 
> If the pan has a strong patina it will take a couple of applications. If you want a mirror polish you'll have to use Flitz metal polish or Wenol and that takes a lot more elbow grease and it's really not worth it. A perfectly mirror-polished pan will be less than perfect in a week or two. That 2 week to 8 week color range is fine for most people. [Are ya cookin' or are ya displayin'?]. In that range it takes only two minutes to brighten up a pan.
> 
> A few notes:
> 
> Patina on copper is like patina on knives. Some like it, some don't. I've gone back and forth over the years. Don't sweat it.
> 
> What puts patina on pans the fastest is water in the sink. Put a pan there and let it get splashed with water, food bits, etc. and it will patina in a couple of dinners. I often wash and dry the pan immediately, or put a little water and soap in it and set it on the counter, making sure the outside is dry. If it's dry it will sit there happily overnight without affecting the color.
> 
> I don't think it's worth removing the patina on saute pans. The high heat can turn the copper brown in one use, so just let the thing mature into a nice deep brown. Throw a thin coat of flaxseed oil or sesame oil on it and it will be pretty in its own way.
> 
> Roasting pans fall in the middle. The heat is high enough that it will turn color far faster than a saucepan but slower than a saute. I'm not likely to leave it in the sink so that helps prevent patina. OTOH that thing is over 10 pounds with a lot of copper to clean. I'll do it only when inspiration strikes, which isn't often. BTW, mine has tin on the inside that that stuff is the most non-stick of anything I've ever seen. Roasted potatoes turn golden brown on the pan-side and they don't stick at all.
> 
> I don't bother to polish the bottoms. Ever.
> 
> www.amazon.com/Flitz-BC-01806-Instant-Tarnish/dp/B002V4VLOC


Great post, thanks. Just bought some random copper polish a few weeks ago, gonna heat the pan.


----------



## Pertti

I took a relatively long time deciding on my pots and pans and kept adding different material and construction pans during the year.

I have now 6 Fissler original profi thick aluminum bottom stainless pans, that have been mentioned here. None of these have warped one bit on my induction, it seems very odd to me that DrEriksson has had that experience.. I find them great pans in the evennes and heat retention sector.

The heat retention is also their biggest downfall for me, though. It takes ages for them to cool down after cooking in my experience. Largely non-issue of course, but sometimes an annoyance with soup etc.

Then I have 6 of the mentioned Falk Copper core pieces. I find them real nice in every day use, in that *for me* on my induction they strike a nice balance on evennes and responsivity. Not perfectly even on a bit of higher heat especially, but a nice balance. So I like to pick a Falk pan often, but the Fissler are more even, noticeably on my induction. The Falk can fry meatballs and steaks pretty darn evenly still though on the whole area, provided some preheat.

For bare cast iron I have Skeppshults on the thicker side and then some thinner Ronneby pan for example. I really see pretty big difference on the evennes of these pans, I would heartily recommend the Skeppshult cast iron pans if someone fancies them CI.

Hard to make any real recommendations as OP is using electric though.. I wonder the all-clad is probably pretty good there already. I would personally be inclined to pick some bi-metal copper though like Falk or Mauviel for electric if really wanting to upgrade and appreciate the fast response of the All-clad. Not saying it would make a huge difference, though.

Then otherwise I think a thick disc bottom like the Fissler or the models mr Wahnamhong already mentioned would be great. I'll mention another hybrid design still: Cristel Casteline (fixe), which has a bit thinner bottom compared to the mentioned hybrid Lagostina Accademia, so it should be a tad more nimble in response, a character one using an inherently even heat source like electric might fancy, while still having some heat retention also.


----------



## deskjockey

Jovidah said:


> De Buyers are great but I wouldn't universally recommend them. Carbon steel doesn't have the best heat conductivity and on crappy / electric stoves it shows. On gas they're awesome.
> Cast iron has that same problem, but most of them tend to be thicker so it's less noticable / problematic.
> Seasoning shouldn't really take long if it's done right the first time.



Thermal capacity is a real asset in my humble opinion with cast iron and steel, assuming your talking about thicker steel and not the thin pans. I can toss one on the pathetic coil burner or in the oven and get a mean sear on a steak and other similar things. Eggs and egg-related things also cook well and evenly on the same bad coil burner IF you let the pan preheat first and don't go straight from the fridge to pan with your eggs or steak.


----------



## Jovidah

You get thermal capacity with heavy stainless steel pans as well... but you get better conductivity on top of it. Sure you can bypass the uneven heating by preheating them in ovens or heating them really slowly on a low or medium burner, but on a pan with better heat conductivity you don't have to.
Don't get me wrong, I love my carbon steel skillets and since I moved and could cook on a gas burner again I use them for almost everything... but in my previous home on electrical it was a different story. Yes you can work around it, but you don't have to. On my old electrical stove I could much easier make better - more even - pancakes in my stainless skillets than in the carbon steel, since the carbon steel would always develop hotspots.


----------



## rmrf

Jovidah said:


> You get thermal capacity with heavy stainless steel pans as well... but you get better conductivity on top of it. Sure you can bypass the uneven heating by preheating them in ovens or heating them really slowly on a low or medium burner, but on a pan with better heat conductivity you don't have to.
> Don't get me wrong, I love my carbon steel skillets and since I moved and could cook on a gas burner again I use them for almost everything... but in my previous home on electrical it was a different story. Yes you can work around it, but you don't have to. On my old electrical stove I could much easier make better - more even - pancakes in my stainless skillets than in the carbon steel, since the carbon steel would always develop hotspots.


I think you mean stainless clad Al? I too observe hotspots in carbon steel compared to stainless clad Al.

Its a minor distinction but,

Thermal conductivity in W/m-K: Cu = 2 x Al = 6 x Cast Fe, CS = 32 x SS
Thermal capacity in J/g-K: Al = 2 x FE, SS, CS, Cu

So thick Al core stainless clad has larger thermal capacity and thermal conductivity. If you had just a block of stainless, it wouldn't have as much thermal capacity as cast iron

Citation (I'm rounding)

Another interesting thing is Al thermal expansion is much larger (50-100%) than Cast iron, Carbon Steel, Cu, or Stainless. So I might expect a pan made of aluminum that undergoes thermal shock to be more susceptible to warping than CS, CI, or pure SS. Also, tri-ply might be more susceptable to warping due to the different metals.


----------



## deskjockey

On cheap electric coils, I use classic Lodge cast iron most. Once heated, it doesn't have hot or cold spots. I hated seeing electric coil burner rings in my pancakes or even when boiling water for pasta. I didn't have copper or thick aluminum so, $10~$20 at Walmart for Lodge cast iron did the trick for me.


----------



## Jovidah

rmrf said:


> I think you mean stainless clad Al? I too observe hotspots in carbon steel compared to stainless clad Al.
> 
> Its a minor distinction but,
> 
> Thermal conductivity in W/m-K: Cu = 2 x Al = 6 x Cast Fe, CS = 32 x SS
> Thermal capacity in J/g-K: Al = 2 x FE, SS, CS, Cu
> 
> So thick Al core stainless clad has larger thermal capacity and thermal conductivity. If you had just a block of stainless, it wouldn't have as much thermal capacity as cast iron
> 
> Citation (I'm rounding)
> 
> Another interesting thing is Al thermal expansion is much larger (50-100%) than Cast iron, Carbon Steel, Cu, or Stainless. So I might expect a pan made of aluminum that undergoes thermal shock to be more susceptible to warping than CS, CI, or pure SS. Also, tri-ply might be more susceptable to warping due to the different metals.



Yeah correct, I meant stainless clad aluminium. I should have been more specific. Stainless itself is technically garbage as you say... But tri-ply clad aluminium works really well IMO. I'm less of a fan of disk bottoms (depending upon the burner you get either hot or cold spots). 

Funny enough you did just answer a question I had been pondering about; why is no one making aluminium versions of the classic enamelled cast iron pans. There's plenty of big cast aluminium pans but they're always more cheapish teflon coated. You'd think that with the amount of people disregarding cast iron because of weight there'd be a decent market for them. But I think you just mentioned the reason; the thermal expansion would most likely cause the enamel to chip or crack.


----------



## rickbern

Jovidah said:


> Yeah correct, I meant stainless clad aluminium. I should have been more specific. Stainless itself is technically garbage as you say... But tri-ply clad aluminium works really well IMO. I'm less of a fan of disk bottoms (depending upon the burner you get either hot or cold spots).
> 
> Funny enough you did just answer a question I had been pondering about; why is no one making aluminium versions of the classic enamelled cast iron pans. There's plenty of big cast aluminium pans but they're always more cheapish teflon coated. You'd think that with the amount of people disregarding cast iron because of weight there'd be a decent market for them. But I think you just mentioned the reason; the thermal expansion would most likely cause the enamel to chip or crack.


i had coil electric for 15 years and all clad was my least favorite pan. I think something with a hefty disk base like fissler or sitram is far superior. A Demeyere Atlantis is way better for electric than all clad, more mass.

I have gas now, I use triply a little more.


----------



## deskjockey

The old 6mm or thicker aluminum pans fell out of favor like butter and other stuff with dubious false bad health-related associations. Don't forget, aluminum cans cause Alzheimer's! Eggs cause heart attacks like red meat! And Trans Fats in Margarine are better than real butter!

I'd love to find one of those old omelet pans that were 3/8ths of an inch thick, enameled or not.


----------



## deskjockey

rickbern said:


> i had coil electric for 15 years and all clad was my least favorite pan. I think something with a hefty disk base like fissler or sitram is far superior. A Demeyere Atlantis is way better for electric than all clad, more mass.
> 
> I have gas now, I use triply a little more.



All-Clad for me on electric coils was terrible. To rub salt in the wound, it was way expensive making it even a bigger disappointment.

All-Clad does work better for me on glass smooth top electric burners.

Fissler Profi works really well everywhere I have tried it. I also like my Demeyere Atlantis but, it is really spendy these days.


----------



## tcmx3

the only things I'd bother using on electric coil are Demeyere Atlantis, All Clad D7 or if I couldnt afford that a Lodge that I preheated for at least 15 minutes before using.

all-clad is brilliant on gas. close enough to copper to get the job done but tough as nails in comparison.

the irony of benefitting from top shelf pans because you cant afford a 5k range isn't lost on me.

personally I put my carbon steel stuff up except for the crepe pan. I just got tired of fighting the seasoning and I like straight walls better so back to Stargazer...


----------



## McMan

deskjockey said:


> I'd love to find one of those old omelet pans that were 3/8ths of an inch thick, enameled or not.


The good news is you can.
The bad news is... wait for it... they're $169.95!!








10" Natural French Chef Omelette Pan


As with all French Chef Omelette Pans, the high-end Natural Finish Omelette Pan is professional quality and made of thick cast aluminum that heats evenly for the quick transfer of heat to the egg mixture. The pan's curving sides are ideally shaped for making omelettes. With its wooden handle...




www.potshopofboston.com


----------



## Jovidah

rickbern said:


> i had coil electric for 15 years and all clad was my least favorite pan. I think something with a hefty disk base like fissler or sitram is far superior. A Demeyere Atlantis is way better for electric than all clad, more mass.
> 
> I have gas now, I use triply a little more.


It's all about the thickness. I honestly don't know how thick the Allclad stuff is (I'm from the EU; the brand is basically nonexistant here), but the thicker stuff like Demeyere and.... wait for it... Ikea Sensuell (at least the bigger/thicker models) worked great on my electric junk stove. Better than the carbon steel. But I guess in the end there's a million different stoves and you'l just have to figure out what works well for yours. Which I guess was kinda the point I was trying to get at in a roundabout way; it's hard to make 'universal' recommendations that work for everyone on any heat source.
Demeyere Atlantis is I think one of the few exceptions where the disk bottom actually covers the full bottom of the pan properly - which at least solves the issue of having a hot/cold ring.



tcmx3 said:


> the irony of benefitting from top shelf pans because you cant afford a 5k range isn't lost on me.


Yeah it's kind of ironic, but the better your stove, the shittier / cheaper pans you can get away with. And vice versa; the shittier your stove the more you gotta pay for pans to not suffer.


----------



## Honerabi

Went for Demeyere Atlantis on a GE Profile Induction stove. Very responsive, especially boiling water. Only complaint is that it scratches very easily. Alloy is soft. The 11" skillet is great, but heavy. Anyone with experience with the Hestan 12.5" Ti skillet?


----------



## coxhaus

How do the Revere ware pots compare? I bought an older than 1968 US made pot. The pre 1968 pots are supposed to have twice the copper as the newer ones. Does the copper bottom make for an even heat source? There are no multi-layers on the sides so that is not as good as say All-clad D3. I was thinking in terms of making a roux using the old copper bottom. Is it thick enough for even high heat? I have been using a Le Cruiset pot. Am I going to notice a difference? What about All-clad D3, D5, D7? I probably can afford an All-clad nowadays. I have never used one.

I am looking for a smaller pot to make gumbo in. I like a dark roux. I have a gas range. We are tired of eating gumbo for a week after I make it. The smaller pot will limit how much I can make.


----------



## Chips

coxhaus said:


> How do the Revere ware pots compare? I bought an older than 1968 US made pot. The pre 1968 pots are supposed to have twice the copper as the newer ones. Does the copper bottom make for an even heat source? There are no multi-layers on the sides so that is not as good as say All-clad D3. I was thinking in terms of making a roux using the old copper bottom. Is it thick enough for even high heat? I have been using a Le Cruiset pot. Am I going to notice a difference? What about All-clad D3, D5, D7? I probably can afford an All-clad nowadays. I have never used one.
> 
> I am looking for a smaller pot to make gumbo in. I like a dark roux. I have a gas range. We are tired of eating gumbo for a week after I make it. The smaller pot will limit how much I can make.




The thicker copper creates responsiveness more than anything. Copper will yield to your heat input almost instantaneously. In my opinion its a skill-based piece of gear, it'll only shine above the rest if the the stuff on the opposite end of the handle are up to snuff. Heat spots are slightly diminished, but the vastly more significant aspect is how responsive the pan is to heat modulation. 

FWIW, when I use my Soy copper/silver saute pan, I find I enjoy its capabilities more so on a gas range than my home electric element that is harder to tame.

Personally, I'd take the All-Clad D3 over my expensive Soy Copper any day. I have and love my All-Clad D3 and feel much more satisfied with it than the Soy. The Soy was just an itch I HAD to scratch. No regrets, but the perks are mainly because of Instagram picture porn to be completely honest…….


----------



## Michi

Heavy copper is probably best paired with gas because it reacts very quickly to changes in heat. On a slowly-changing electric ceramic cooktop, much of that advantage is wasted.


----------



## deskjockey

Copper will cool off faster on one of those slow heating or cooling cooktops if you lift the pan but, I also agree that Natural Gas is probably the best choice for thick copper pans.

For most people and most uses, a top-quality stainless pan is hard to beat. Over time, I find I'm using my stainless skillets a lot more for everything from eggs to hamburgers.


----------



## coxhaus

So, I have been trying to figure out which All-Clad pans are made in the US. I sent an email to All-Clad. In looking at the D3 pan I noticed a mc2 pan. The mc2 pan seems to have thicker aluminum. Would it be a better choice than the D3 for gas?


----------



## parbaked

coxhaus said:


> So, I have been trying to figure out which All-Clad pans are made in the US. I sent an email to All-Clad. In looking at the D3 pan I noticed a mc2 pan. The mc2 pan seems to have thicker aluminum. Would it be a better choice than the D3 for gas?


All Clad manufacturers 100% of it's fully clad cookware in its factory near Pittsburgh, PA.
Only electronics and some accessories are made overseas.

I replaced my MC2 with some D3 because I recently switched to induction.
I don't think you will notice a difference in performance, but you can't use the MC2 on induction.

I also bought a couple of Demeyere Industry pans, which are equally good and sometimes less expensive...


----------



## DavidPF

coxhaus said:


> The mc2 pan seems to have thicker aluminum. Would it be a better choice than the D3 for gas?


The MC2 is better than D3 in EVERY way for every purpose, except three things: 1. No induction; 2. it doesn't look shiny sitting on your shelf; 3. it is not very good in the dishwasher, wash it by hand. You should get it for sure unless those are a problem.


----------



## Rangen

Michi said:


> Heavy copper is probably best paired with gas because it reacts very quickly to changes in heat. On a slowly-changing electric ceramic cooktop, much of that advantage is wasted.



All good, I have heavy copper, and love it on gas, but I am accumulating carbon on the bottom and I have no idea how to get rid of it, other than very unreasonable amounts of elbow grease. Any tricks or tips?


----------



## DavidPF

Rangen said:


> accumulating carbon on the bottom and I have no idea how to get rid of it


One possible solution: give up on polishing and enjoy cooking.


----------



## deskjockey

Personally, I don't stress over it. Scrubbing, abrasives, chemicals, etc. all hurt the copper so, I generally leave it alone and enjoy my pans. If I need showpieces, I'll get some cheap copper from the discount store that I display and don't cook in.


----------



## rmrf

DavidPF said:


> The MC2 is better than D3 in EVERY way for every purpose, except three things: 1. No induction; 2. it doesn't look shiny sitting on your shelf; 3. it is not very good in the dishwasher, wash it by hand. You should get it for sure unless those are a problem.


I wish they just made MC2 + induction stainless


----------



## DavidPF

rmrf said:


> I wish they just made MC2 + induction stainless


You mean, D3 with a much thicker middle layer? It seems like that would be nice, yes. I don't know if there's a good reason why they don't. Maybe there's some reason why it doesn't make sense?

(The obvious reason is $$ ... I just meant if there's another reason.)


----------



## rmrf

DavidPF said:


> You mean, D3 with a much thicker middle layer? It seems like that would be nice, yes. I don't know if there's a good reason why they don't. Maybe there's some reason why it doesn't make sense?
> 
> (The obvious reason is $$ ... I just meant if there's another reason.)


Yes, thats what I mean. I see demeyere doing very thick aluminum layers so I don't think its a technical difficulty. Maybe they're afraid of cannibalizing their D5 and D7 lines.


----------



## DavidPF

rmrf said:


> Yes, thats what I mean. I see demeyere doing very thick aluminum layers so I don't think its a technical difficulty. Maybe they're afraid of cannibalizing their D5 and D7 lines.


If they made "D3 with double thick middle layer" and someone publicized a head-to-head cooking comparison of it with regular D3, D5, D7, and Copper Core, it would outperform all of them - and All Clad would be screwed. I never realized it, but part of their financial success must be tied up in making sure none of their top lines is really any better than the others.


----------



## coxhaus

So is the D5, D7 and copper core more for electric and induction rather than gas? I guess if you get the bottom too thick then the pan cannot react as fast as gas. Maybe the thick bottom is more for electric and induction for even heating and to stop warping. I am still trying to figure out the best pan for my gas range.


----------



## SeattleB

@coxhaus: I think "best" depends upon what you're cooking. Best for searing steaks might be heavy cast-iron that will hold enough heat that the pan won't cool instantly when the mass of cold meat hits the surface. If you are creating a delicate sauce, best might be something that spreads heat evenly at low temperatures and has quick reactivity for subtle temperature adjustments (I'd say best is tin-lined copper). For saute it would be the ability to handle a lot of heat and have fairly fast reaction to heat input, which means full copper or carbon steel. Stainless wins in the categories of shiny and easy to clean. Aluminum wins on price.

Otherwise, for saucepans frankly I think any old pan will do as long as the bottom is thick enough to spread heat to avoid burning. Heating soup or steaming broccoli don't have very technical requirements.


----------



## btbyrd

Induction is just as responsive as gas, if not moreso. And gas doesn't necessarily heat more evenly than electric or induction. As for the cookware, D7 is primarily designed to be heavy and store up thermal energy. In practice, it functions much like heavier cast iron (but it's nonreactive and heats more evenly). It's excellent at searing. As you'd expect, the D5 is somewhere in the middle in terms of performance. It's heavier than the D3 and less prone to scorching. The copper core is basically the same as D5 but with a layer of copper in the middle instead of a layer of stainless steel. It's supposed to be more responsive, but I think it's mostly a marketing gimmick. While I own some of the copper core, I've never had it beside the D5, but I don't think there'd be a difference that's worth the price premium. I bought mine because it was on sale, not because I thought it was extra special awesome thermally.

And yes, "best" depends on what you're cooking.


----------



## jankdc

I think that my Fissler is much better than my cast iron for meat searing.


----------



## spaceconvoy

jankdc said:


> I think that my Fissler is much better than my cast iron for meat searing.


Do you have an electric stove? I feel the same way about cast iron vs my thick aluminum base stainless clad frying pan. Cast iron seems to transfer heat more directly above the electric coil, and sometimes you can see the spiral pattern on a steak. For whatever reason my thinner carbon steel pan is better in this regard, though still not as even as my stainless. Maybe it's the difference in density between cast iron and carbon steel


----------



## jankdc

I have an induction stove. I had electric before that. The Fissler is really great for heat distribution and unlike the carbon steel, doesn't cool down once you put the meat in the pan. I cooked for years on cast iron. The Fissler is so much better.


----------



## DavidPF

jankdc said:


> I have an induction stove. I had electric before that. The Fissler is really great for heat distribution and unlike the carbon steel, doesn't cool down once you put the meat in the pan. I cooked for years on cast iron. The Fissler is so much better.


The carbon steel cooling down so quickly is not literally the fault of the material, just the fact that it's thin. (But almost all carbon steel pans _are_ thin, so you're still not wrong to say it.)

Cast iron heats unevenly. Aluminum (inside the base of the Fissler) heats much more evenly, though nothing is perfect.


----------



## DavidPF

SeattleB said:


> for saucepans frankly I think any old pan will do as long as the bottom is thick enough to spread heat to avoid burning.


Plain thin stainless without a disk on the bottom does burn things easily. You can get it if you need the cheapest and you're basically only boiling water. AFAIK nobody makes thick single-layer stainless, or very very little, though I think they used to; the next level up is probably the pot with the poor quality disk bottom, and then the better disk bottom (with a thicker piece of aluminum inside, and the disk attached more securely to the pot). After that, it's what's been being discussed already.


----------



## DavidPF

For the right purposes, thick plain aluminum by itself can work very well. But in a lot of cases it's too soft or too reactive, and it can't do induction.


----------



## coxhaus

So, I ordered an All Clad D3 frying pan from William Sonoma a few of weeks ago. It looks like it will not ship until March. I ordered a 10-inch as I am kind of downsizing since covid. I think a 10-inch fry pan will be a good size for 2. Most of my other pans are larger as we entertain a lot. I just could not wait and I found an All Clad D5 on eBay. How much difference will I notice between the D5 and D3 using a Viking gas range? Is there a reason for both?


----------



## parbaked

coxhaus said:


> How much difference will I notice between the D5 and D3 using a Viking gas range? Is there a reason for both?


I don't think you will notice any difference and certainly no reason for both in the same size...


----------



## DavidPF

coxhaus said:


> How much difference will I notice between the D5 and D3 using a Viking gas range? Is there a reason for both?


Some styles of frying pans are a bit straighter sided, allowing more "floor space" for their diameter. All-Clad D3 and D5 have more sloped sides, making the tossing/flipping move easier to do but sacrificing some of the width of the flat part. I have an 8-inch D3, and in use it feels small. I think you made the right choice for size.

My personal theory is that All-Clad's D3, D5, and copper core exist only to give customers the feeling of choice within their brand, to prevent them from straying to a different brand. Everyone likes choice. All of them perform the same, and there's no reason for keeping both of yours. Even on a different stove, no matter what kind, the performance and appearance are a toss-up.

MC2 may really cook a bit better - that's probably why they stopped making it.  (But even there, not a huge performance difference, plus MC2 wasn't shiny on the outside and didn't go in the dishwasher.)


----------



## DavidPF

(I have no doubt that a suitably nerdy person using suitably nerdy equipment can prove that they're not quite the same; I just mean that the differences are insignificant for the cook.)


----------



## coxhaus

I looked for an MC2 pan but they don't make them anymore and all the ones on eBay looked rough to me. I found a real nice All Clad D5 for a good price so I decided to buy it and not wait.

I will try to cancel my All Clad D3 order.


----------



## DavidPF

coxhaus said:


> I looked for an MC2 pan but they don't make them anymore and all the ones on eBay looked rough to me. I found a real nice All Clad D5 for a good price so I decided to buy it and not wait.
> 
> I will try to cancel my All Clad D3 order.


If you can't cancel, you can sell it, or give it to someone who needs one.

I think that's another reason they quit making MC2 - they know customers want a shiny pan. (They are shiny... on the inside...) Plus the aluminum exterior means no induction.


----------



## coxhaus

I have been playing with my All Clad D5 10-inch pan. It is nice. It seems real even heat wise to me and it holds heat more than my carbon steel pans closer to cast iron but maybe a little less. I figured out it really doesn't take that much butter to cook an omelet. I used too much butter the first time. 

So, I ordered a Viking 9.4-inch sauté pan US made. I think this will help with my downsizing as the pan is smaller than what I use now. I wonder if All Clad makes Viking pans.


----------



## DavidPF

coxhaus said:


> I wonder if All Clad makes Viking pans.


It looks as if the Viking pans have fairly comfortable handles; I don't think All Clad knows how to do that.


----------



## DavidPF

coxhaus said:


> ... it holds heat more than my carbon steel pans closer to cast iron but maybe a little less.


Most cast iron is pretty thick, and holds a lot of heat just because of that. If the carbon steel was as thick and heavy as that, it would probably hold about the same. I think your new pan probably holds less heat than a big chunk of cast iron, but that's OK - pans with extreme heat-holding can be a pain, because when you turn off the heat they keep on cooking for too long. Sometimes that doesn't matter - it depends on what you're making.


----------



## coxhaus

DavidPF said:


> Most cast iron is pretty thick, and holds a lot of heat just because of that. If the carbon steel was as thick and heavy as that, it would probably hold about the same. I think your new pan probably holds less heat than a big chunk of cast iron, but that's OK - pans with extreme heat-holding can be a pain, because when you turn off the heat they keep on cooking for too long. Sometimes that doesn't matter - it depends on what you're making.



So true. I am figuring out how to cook on the D5 pan as it is a little different. I wonder how the Viking pan will cook. I guess less layers so it will have a faster reaction time. I have never used a Viking pan before but I have a Viking range and they seem to do good things as I am impressed with my range.

The All Clad D5 holds a lot of heat for such a light pan.


----------



## MarcelNL

as of today I'm testing a Demeyere controllinduc duraslide frying pan, and so far I love it!
Today I made some porcini risotto with Iberico medallions that I had in the sous vide and reverse seared in thta pan and they came out lovely crisp, nicely browned yet with the taste of the butter perfectly kept!


----------



## DavidPF

coxhaus said:


> I wonder if All Clad makes Viking pans


Looking closer, they do have some pretty strong similarities. I think you might be right. Viking apparently refuses to discuss which factory their pans come from; All Clad would NOT want word to get out that their product is readily available for a lower price - or that they do any contract work, for that matter.

(I just realized I was only assuming that nobody would price All Clad higher than they do themselves)


----------



## orangehero

At one point Viking used to be made by Demeyere in Belgium.


----------



## DavidPF

orangehero said:


> At one point Viking used to be made by Demeyere in Belgium.


Maybe some of it still is - or maybe this is another reason they don't want to say who makes them, that they keep changing it.

It definitely _isn't_ all made in the same place.

EDIT: It seems they stopped using Demeyere several years ago.


----------



## MarcelNL

I think I fell in love with the new frying pan, it 'magically' loses it's magnetic properties over 250'C so burning on an induction stove is not an issue (which it is with the carbon Debuyere I recently discovered)


----------



## DavidPF

MarcelNL said:


> I think I fell in love with the new frying pan, it 'magically' loses it's magnetic properties over 250'C so burning on an induction stove is not an issue (which it is with the carbon Debuyere I recently discovered)


Is it induction-only?

(and if the first answer was "No"): Is it expected to just behave normally on other types of stoves?


----------



## MarcelNL

DavidPF said:


> Is it induction-only?
> 
> (and if the first answer was "No"): Is it expected to just behave normally on other types of stoves?


they are good for all stoves, but the 'control' mechanism obviously only works on induction


----------



## btbyrd

Hadn't heard of these -- very cool feature!


----------



## DavidPF

MarcelNL said:


> burning on an induction stove is not an issue (which it is with the carbon Debuyere I recently discovered)


I think a lot of people prefer thin carbon steel pans exactly because they seem to send all of the heat straight into the food pretty much instantly. That's a good feature - until it isn't.


----------



## MarcelNL

the Debuyere carbon steel frying pan is anything but thin ;-) It's a great pan too.


----------



## TB_London

MarcelNL said:


> I think I fell in love with the new frying pan, it 'magically' loses it's magnetic properties over 250'C so burning on an induction stove is not an issue (which it is with the carbon Debuyere I recently discovered)



That is pretty magic as the curie point for iron is 770c . Can’t think of any scientific way to do that


----------



## DavidPF

TB_London said:


> Can’t think of any scientific way to do that


Maybe they used an unscientific way.


----------



## coxhaus

DavidPF said:


> I think a lot of people prefer thin carbon steel pans exactly because they seem to send all of the heat straight into the food pretty much instantly. That's a good feature - until it isn't.



I like my Debuyere carbon 12-inch pan very much but it does show hot spots on my gas range which I don't seem to see on my new All Clad D5 10-inch pan. I wish I had remote temperature gage so I could see if both pans come up to the same temperature. I wonder if you add all that shielding that maybe the pan will run at a lower temperature. And even if it does is that a problem? That I don't know.


----------



## DavidPF

coxhaus said:


> And even if it does is that a problem? That I don't know.


IMO the right tests to do on a pan are cooking what you want to cook. If there's a difference but you don't notice it while cooking, and the dish turns out the same, then to me that's a "no-difference difference".


----------



## MarcelNL

Curie temperature of materials[2][3][4]

MaterialCurie
temperature (K)Iron (Fe)1043Cobalt (Co)1400Nickel (Ni)627Gadolinium (Gd)292Dysprosium (Dy)88Manganese bismuthide (MnBi)630Manganese antimonide (MnSb)587Chromium(IV) oxide (CrO2)386Manganese arsenide (MnAs)318Europium oxide (EuO)69Iron(III) oxide (Fe2O3)948Iron(II,III) oxide (FeOFe2O3)858NiO–Fe2O3858CuO–Fe2O3728MgO–Fe2O3713MnO–Fe2O3573Yttrium iron garnet (Y3Fe5O12)560Neodymium magnets583–673Alnico973–1133Samarium–cobalt magnets993–1073Strontium ferrite723

take your pick, I just hope they did not go for one of the more scary ones


----------



## DavidPF

MarcelNL said:


> Curie temperature of materials[2][3][4]
> 
> MaterialCurie
> temperature (K)Iron (Fe)1043Cobalt (Co)1400Nickel (Ni)627Gadolinium (Gd)292Dysprosium (Dy)88Manganese bismuthide (MnBi)630Manganese antimonide (MnSb)587Chromium(IV) oxide (CrO2)386Manganese arsenide (MnAs)318Europium oxide (EuO)69Iron(III) oxide (Fe2O3)948Iron(II,III) oxide (FeOFe2O3)858NiO–Fe2O3858CuO–Fe2O3728MgO–Fe2O3713MnO–Fe2O3573Yttrium iron garnet (Y3Fe5O12)560Neodymium magnets583–673Alnico973–1133Samarium–cobalt magnets993–1073Strontium ferrite723
> 
> take your pick, I just hope they did not go for one of the more scary ones


Apparently there have been relatively recent experiments with various gadolinium alloys, specifically for the purpose of manipulating Curie temperatures. Sounds possible to me, but I don't know metals.

(My source was Wikipedia, so even less reason to trust me)


----------



## DavidPF

coxhaus said:


> And even if it does is that a problem? That I don't know


I should clarify that I think special tests have their place in the right context. I think the right context is having _all_ the testing equipment and doing _all_ the tests on lots of pans, while taking notes and making your results reproducible - basically becoming "that pan testing guy", so that what you find out isn't just an isolated data point.

I don't want to do that, so if I'm interested I look at the results of the people who do.

Pans are IMO easier to choose than knives, because while a bad knife ruins your kitchen experience, a bad pan directly ruins your food. People who only know poor-quality knives can still make excellent food with difficulty; people who only know poor-quality pans are in bigger trouble. So for pans, consulting a few people who make really good food and copying their choices is good enough for (almost) anyone. In contrast, we all know there are some pretty good cooks who have got by without learning much about choosing knives. (And people like Pépin who seem to visualize the correct result so strongly that in their hands any pointed stick will be forced to act like a knife.  )


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

DavidPF said:


> I should clarify that I think special tests have their place in the right context. I think the right context is having _all_ the testing equipment and doing _all_ the tests on lots of pans, while taking notes and making your results reproducible - basically becoming "that pan testing guy", so that what you find out isn't just an isolated data point.
> 
> I don't want to do that, so if I'm interested I look at the results of the people who do.
> 
> Pans are IMO easier to choose than knives, because while a bad knife ruins your kitchen experience, a bad pan directly ruins your food. People who only know poor-quality knives can still make excellent food with difficulty; people who only know poor-quality pans are in bigger trouble. So for pans, consulting a few people who make really good food and copying their choices is good enough for (almost) anyone. In contrast, we all know there are some pretty good cooks who have got by without learning much about choosing knives. (And people like Pépin who seem to visualize the correct result so strongly that in their hands any pointed stick will be forced to act like a knife.  )



Have you ever seen the pans on stoves in high paced kitchens? Even high-end kitchens? Diners? They are often bent, warped, rickety handles, super thin, etc. They seem to get by.


----------



## DavidPF

HumbleHomeCook said:


> Have you ever seen the pans on stoves in high paced kitchens? Even high-end kitchens? Diners? They are often bent, warped, rickety handles, super thin, etc. They seem to get by.


But what they say they _like_ to use can generally be trusted, that's what I was trying to get at. (Unless they're being paid to say it)


----------



## rmrf

DavidPF said:


> Pans are IMO easier to choose than knives, because while a bad knife ruins your kitchen experience, a bad pan directly ruins your food.





HumbleHomeCook said:


> Have you ever seen the pans on stoves in high paced kitchens? Even high-end kitchens? Diners? They are often bent, warped, rickety handles, super thin, etc. They seem to get by.



Stove choice matters a lot too. I'd bet that professional kitchens have a lot more power and the heat source (gas) is a lot more uniform than the majority of home kitchens. The pace of cooking probably matters as well. I know I can warp pretty much any pan I want by deglazing at too high of temperatures. I can afford to wait for my pan to cool, but a pro-cook might not. Cost might be another factor: replacing a cheap pan 10 times is cheaper than replacing a good pan twice.

For a home cook, I think you should pick cookware based on your stove and the kinds of food you want to make / the style of food you want to cook. With my induction stove, when I want even heat and high heat capacity for stir fry I choose demeyere. For the same purpose on my outdoor grill, I have a thick vollrath aluminum pan. I could use cast iron, but a 14'' cast iron pan sounded too heavy.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

rmrf said:


> Stove choice matters a lot too. I'd bet that professional kitchens have a lot more power and the heat source (gas) is a lot more uniform than the majority of home kitchens. The pace of cooking probably matters as well. I know I can warp pretty much any pan I want by deglazing at too high of temperatures. I can afford to wait for my pan to cool, but a pro-cook might not. Cost might be another factor: replacing a cheap pan 10 times is cheaper than replacing a good pan twice.
> 
> For a home cook, I think you should pick cookware based on your stove and the kinds of food you want to make / the style of food you want to cook. With my induction stove, when I want even heat and high heat capacity for stir fry I choose demeyere. For the same purpose on my outdoor grill, I have a thick vollrath aluminum pan. I could use cast iron, but a 14'' cast iron pan sounded too heavy.



Don't get me wrong, I'm an advocate for good cookware.


----------



## RockyBasel

I’m live in CH, induction country.for induction, is it fair to surmise that the posts on this thread recommend All Clad for induction stoves. I don’t want to hijack the OP’s thread, but urgent need to buy a new pan- currently I have and 1 good all clad and an amazing Mauviel with a cast iron handle - incredibly heavy and great on gas. But useless here in induction-centric CH - just sits in the basement

Is there a better induction alternative to All Cladnstainless?


----------



## nwshull

coxhaus said:


> I like my Debuyere carbon 12-inch pan very much but it does show hot spots on my gas range which I don't seem to see on my new All Clad D5 10-inch pan. I wish I had remote temperature gage so I could see if both pans come up to the same temperature. I wonder if you add all that shielding that maybe the pan will run at a lower temperature. And even if it does is that a problem? That I don't know.



Yeah, carbon steel pans store heat better, but they do not transfer heat efficiently around the pan. In terms of their properties they are pretty similar to cast iron, in fact I am pretty sure generally more iron than cast iron. If you want the heat truly even, you're better off heating it up in the oven then transferring it to the stove top. 

All clad are either aluminum or copper in the middle, so they transfer the heat and disperse it much quicker and more evenly, including to the food as well. However, the food saps the heat energy much faster as well. That higher heat resevoir in the carbon steel pan or cast iron pan is what makes it better for browning, but not as good at tasks that require even distribution of heat or low even heat. If you have the money and can only go with one, All Clad or some equivalent stainless is the best option. But a carbon steel pan is relatively cheap, so its a nice add on, I like more than cast iron.


----------



## rmrf

RockyBasel said:


> I’m live in CH, induction country.for induction, is it fair to surmise that the posts on this thread recommend All Clad for induction stoves. I don’t want to hijack the OP’s thread, but urgent need to buy a new pan- currently I have and 1 good all clad and an amazing Mauviel with a cast iron handle - incredibly heavy and great on gas. But useless here in induction-centric CH - just sits in the basement
> 
> Is there a better induction alternative to All Cladnstainless?



Demeyere is pretty good if you are ok with a high heat capacity (slow reacting) pan on induction. I find it gets hotter and the heat is more even than all-clad D3 or D5 on induction. They can be very pricey, however. They are also extremely heavy. 

I personally think cast iron and carbon steel have too many hot spots to be useful at 12 inch diameter pans.

There are also a few disk bottom pans that are supposed to be very good. I have a massive Paderno World cuisine but I don't use it enough to be able to tell you how even it is.


----------



## big_adventure

I read some write up where, I think Wirecutter at the NYTimes, tested a bunch of stuff and decided All-Clad was the way to go.

For me, my building doesn't have gas, so I'm on induction. Cast iron and thick carbon steel work great, they just require you to plan ahead to get even heat. I generally have no issue doing that when I want to cook something, so it works for me. I throw the pan on there and start heating it pretty low, dry except for the ever-present seasoning, for at least 5 or more minutes. Then I add whatever I need to add first (often fat, but it depends of course) and go from there. 

A wok is OK there as well - you just need a flat-bottom one and hopefully a powerful induction cooktop. I have 2, one carbon and one non-stick. I'd prefer a gas burner, but counterspace is at a premium here and kids running about don't make you confident for explosive fires.

And after, hell, I've got a mish-mash of things: a couple of Tefals given to me, a couple of Guy Degrennes that my ex-wife and I bought 17 years ago, 

An idea for you: pick up a cheap carbon-steel pan, a cheap carbon steel wok and a potent gas burner and go to town with those. Get everything for 150 bucks or so.


----------



## DavidPF

RockyBasel said:


> I’m live in CH, induction country.for induction, is it fair to surmise that the posts on this thread recommend All Clad for induction stoves. I don’t want to hijack the OP’s thread, but urgent need to buy a new pan- currently I have and 1 good all clad and an amazing Mauviel with a cast iron handle - incredibly heavy and great on gas. But useless here in induction-centric CH - just sits in the basement
> 
> Is there a better induction alternative to All Cladnstainless?


@MarcelNL with his recent mention of Demeyere ControlInduc - which loses its ability to absorb induction energy when the pan reaches overheating temperature - is certainly very interesting. I believe his is non-stick but I think they're available without that too. I don't know whether any special cooking techniques are "regulated out of existence" by this prevention of overheating, which is said to cut off the heat around 250°C.


----------



## MarcelNL

DavidPF said:


> @MarcelNL with his recent mention of Demeyere ControlInduc - which loses its ability to absorb induction energy when the pan reaches overheating temperature - is certainly very interesting. I believe his is non-stick but I think they're available without that too. I don't know whether any special cooking techniques are "regulated out of existence" by this prevention of overheating, which is said to cut off the heat around 250°C.



yeah that is a non stick pan (Teflon based coating, they say it'll last at least 5 years so I am storing the receipt) and I have to say that I was sceptical at buying but absolutely adore the pan.

For seriously high heat the Debuyer induction version of the carbon does great, yet it makes you cooking at the immediate risk of cremating stuff in the pan.... (happened to me twice when I was enthusiastically keeping max power under it)


----------



## DavidPF

MarcelNL said:


> yeah that is a non stick pan (Teflon based coating, they say it'll last at least 5 years so I am storing the receipt) and I have to say that I was sceptical at buying but absolutely adore the pan.


All they need now is to reconsider the name. It looks funny on a computer screen where l and I look similar, plus it introduces this strange fantasy character Controlling Duck who is waiting and watching for his chance to take over the kitchen. 

Is there anything you feel you can't do with this heat limitation? It seems high enough to me that it wouldn't exclude much of anything other than completely burning food.


----------



## MarcelNL

they did, it's called inducontrol....I now see, not that THAT is any better


----------



## DavidPF

MarcelNL said:


> they did, it's called inducontrol....I now see, not that THAT is any better


Maybe they could call it "I'm Hot And I'm Not Crazy - It's Safe To Take Me Home" 

Hmmmm, too long.


----------



## RockyBasel

Extremely helpful - I have too good pans to consider now. Thanks for the advice


----------



## Jovidah

All Clad doesn't really cater to the European market so they'll be really hard to get in Europe and excessively pricey. The top tier stainless pan producer in Europe to look at is DeMeyere (part of Zwiling group since a few years). Also really pricey, but looks top notch. From what I've seen it's not going to be any worse than All-Clad, but it will be on the heavy side.

Carbon steel stuff like DeBuyer is technically compatible and will work, but the heat won't be as even as on the top end triply stuff. Whether that's a problem largely depends on the quality of your stove and how much you care.

I don't really see the point of that ControlInduc stuff from deMeyere. Looks too much like it's catering to incompetent housewifes or something. It's been on the market for a while so I guess it probably works as advertised... I just don't really see the added value. I guess you could use it to stretch to keep you from burning your teflon but personally I think buying expensive teflon pans is a waste; in the end they're still a disposable product that won't last. Better off shopping in the bang-for-your-buck category for those.


----------



## DavidPF

Where I am, there are Zwilling-branded triple ply pans that I'd consider the equal of All Clad. Perhaps those are readily available in Europe.


----------



## jankdc

RockyBasel said:


> I’m live in CH, induction country.for induction, is it fair to surmise that the posts on this thread recommend All Clad for induction stoves. I don’t want to hijack the OP’s thread, but urgent need to buy a new pan- currently I have and 1 good all clad and an amazing Mauviel with a cast iron handle - incredibly heavy and great on gas. But useless here in induction-centric CH - just sits in the basement
> 
> Is there a better induction alternative to All Cladnstainless?


I use induction and I love my Fissler pots and pans. I'm gradually adding more to my collection. They work great on induction. Fissler should definitely be among the pans you consider.


----------



## Famima

RockyBasel said:


> I’m live in CH, induction country.for induction, is it fair to surmise that the posts on this thread recommend All Clad for induction stoves. I don’t want to hijack the OP’s thread, but urgent need to buy a new pan- currently I have and 1 good all clad and an amazing Mauviel with a cast iron handle - incredibly heavy and great on gas. But useless here in induction-centric CH - just sits in the basement
> 
> Is there a better induction alternative to All Cladnstainless?



In CH check out Noser Inox - Bratpfannen - Haushalt

They're ubiquitous in commercial kitchens, well made and great value. I don't use induction, but can't see why a decent disc bottom frying pan wouldn't be ideal - ply pans only make sense for me on gas, where you are trying to avoid hot spots where the disc ends and the flame hits the steel directly.


----------



## Famima

jankdc said:


> I use induction and I love my Fissler pots and pans. I'm gradually adding more to my collection. They work great on induction. Fissler should definitely be among the pans you consider.



I have a big Fissler frying pan - the one thing about it, is that the base is thick and it holds a lot of heat. Great for searing big bits of meat (i.e. get the pan hot and keep it hot), rather less good for either tossing (due to weight) or fine control of cooking temperature (easy to overshoot both ways). One thing to bear in mind with these...


----------



## MarcelNL

Jovidah said:


> I don't really see the point of that ControlInduc stuff from deMeyere. Looks too much like it's catering to incompetent housewifes or something. It's been on the market for a while so I guess it probably works as advertised... I just don't really see the added value. I guess you could use it to stretch to keep you from burning your teflon but personally I think buying expensive teflon pans is a waste; in the end they're still a disposable product that won't last. Better off shopping in the bang-for-your-buck category for those.



I bought it to ensure the non stick coating would evaporate within weeks having a couple of teens who sometimes 'cook' stuff, against those odds no cheap non stick pan can compete ...I recently threw out a fairly new pan in which one of them made, well rather; cremated, oatmeal.

So far it does cater for my incompetence too as it seems to work keeping a great balance between frying and not burning.

+1 on the warning for the weight on the Fissler frying pans, tossing makes using them a work-out


----------



## Olsen

I can only say copper. Cast iron has its merits but beside that forget all that aluminium/stainless steel cookware. Mauviel (their 250), Bourgeat or Falk. If you have induction Falk's new Coppercore works on induction. It is the best and not that expensive. Beside a lot of Mauviel and Bourgeat I have some Falk and also two pieces in Coppercore (a pan and a sauteuse). I bougth to test them even though I have gas. A friend of mine has induction, he borrowed them an absolutely loves them! Forget tin lined copper pans. The tin coating is too fragile and retining is expensive (and where can you have it done anyway?)


----------



## DavidPF

Olsen said:


> I can only say copper.


I get that you like the copper, but what have you personally done with it that you couldn't have done with your other pans? 
Real copper cookware is expensive and heavy, so there's not much point in buying it unless it does things that other really good cookware can't do.


----------



## MarcelNL

I used to own a Mauviel copper sauce pan that I LOVED for it's heat transfer that was somehow so smooth, even and naturally feeling that it spoke to me. Alas, it did not work in induction so I gave it to my best friend.
BTW re-tinning can be done DIY


----------



## Olsen

Expensive?? Lots of good non-copper cookware is also expensive. Maybe not as expensive as copper,i basically have no clue and I don't care. Compared to the fact that it will last forever it's not expensive unless you are rushing to buy new each year. Copper has superior heat conducting capability. Heavy? Your are absolutely right but so is cast iron! The headline reads "high end". Copper is high end and the best. I've been using copper cookware almost exclusively the last 15 years and I have not tried all there is on the market of other products. Of course you can prepare wonderfull food with other types.


----------



## rmrf

DavidPF said:


> Real copper cookware is expensive and heavy, so there's not much point in buying it unless it does things that other really good cookware can't do.





Olsen said:


> Expensive?? Lots of good non-copper cookware is also expensive. Maybe not as expensive as copper,i basically have no clue and I don't care. ... Copper is high end and the best. I've been using copper cookware almost exclusively the last 15 years and I have not tried all there is on the market of other products. Of course you can prepare wonderful food with other types.



Demeyere makes some very good cookware. In a naive 1D model, their 7ply 4.8mm aluminum core pans should compare well with a 2.9mm copper core pan in terms of thermal conductivity / heat uniformity. Assuming there is a copper core pan that thick (I think there are tin or silver lined ones, but I will wait for a stainless induction safe one...) the aluminum core pan should have more than twice as much heat capacity. This is a good thing if you are searing meat or cooking something at constant temperature but a bad thing for if you want to change temperatures. Personally, I would love a copper core pan with >3mm copper core so I wouldn't have to sit around waiting for my pan to pre-heat.

Regarding expense, I think copper clad stainless is more expensive but you're not talking 2x compared to similarly performing aluminum clad stainless. For instance, in terms of thermal conductivity, the Falk copper coeur line is comparable to the demeyere industry line. Their 11 in pans are of comparable size. The Falk is ~270 and the demeyere is ~200. The Falk is 2.3 kg vs 1.5 kg. A copper pan should always be heavier than a similarly conductive aluminum pan.

A fun tidbit: In this 1D model, a cast iron pan with the same thermal conductivity as a demeyere 7ply 12.5 in pan would need to be ~30mm thick and would weigh about ~30 kg! To copy an all-clad tri-ply, you need ~10mm at ~10 kg and for the falk copper coeur, ~20mm at ~20 kg.

Of course, I think the only time you need such high thermal conductivity is on induction because the area of hot metal is smallest compared to electric (coil or otherwise) and gas. Maybe if the gas stove is made poorly...


----------



## Jovidah

Famima said:


> In CH check out Noser Inox - Bratpfannen - Haushalt
> 
> They're ubiquitous in commercial kitchens, well made and great value. I don't use induction, but can't see why a decent disc bottom frying pan wouldn't be ideal - ply pans only make sense for me on gas, where you are trying to avoid hot spots where the disc ends and the flame hits the steel directly.


On induction you can get the opposite problem; cold spots around the disk.



MarcelNL said:


> I bought it to ensure the non stick coating would evaporate within weeks having a couple of teens who sometimes 'cook' stuff, against those odds no cheap non stick pan can compete ...I recently threw out a fairly new pan in which one of them made, well rather; cremated, oatmeal.
> 
> So far it does cater for my incompetence too as it seems to work keeping a great balance between frying and not burning.
> 
> +1 on the warning for the weight on the Fissler frying pans, tossing makes using them a work-out


Even if they won't evaporate it they'll just scratch it or find some other way to destroy it.  Personally I have yet to find a non-stick pan that lasts more than 5 years before it starts inserting teflon into your food, no matter the price range. Can't say I ever really have issues with burning anything, but I'm on gas.



Olsen said:


> I can only say copper. Cast iron has its merits but beside that forget all that aluminium/stainless steel cookware. Mauviel (their 250), Bourgeat or Falk. If you have induction Falk's new Coppercore works on induction. It is the best and not that expensive.


In what universe is 270 euros for a 28 cm pan not expensive? :| It even makes deMeyere look very affordable...I'm sure it works well but especially for a frying pan it's not like it's really doing anything a triply stainless pan couldnt.


----------



## rmrf

Another fun idea is graphite core fry pans. Graphite by itself has thermal conductivity roughly 75% of aluminum but is 25% as dense. If you align graphite in the right way, I read it has 2x the thermal conductivity of copper! This is the first material I've heard of with the potential to beat copper in making a thermally conductive pan with low heat capacity. All-clad, in 2018, filed a patent for graphite strips or plates in the core of a fry pan.


----------



## Olsen

"In what universe is 270 euros for a 28 cm pan not expensive? :| It even makes deMeyere look very affordable...I'm sure it works well but especially for a frying pan it's not like it's really doing anything a triply stainless pan couldnt."

Everything is relative. 270 Euros are not cheap in the cookware world but neither probhibitevely expensive nor is the relatively low price (compared to your car, house etc. etc.) a major issue considering the fact that you can have the pan for the rest of your life


----------



## Michi

I think pans are much like tradesmen's tools. The difference between a Hilti and a Black & Decker is striking. You get what you pay for.

I once dropped a Hilti electric drill (which weighed north of 10 kg) from the 13th floor of a building. It had a 12 mm drill bit attached. The Hilti landed on concrete with the drill bit pointing down. The drill bit was bent. And the Hilti never noticed…


----------



## Sdo

DavidPF said:


> @MarcelNL with his recent mention of Demeyere ControlInduc - which loses its ability to absorb induction energy when the pan reaches overheating temperature - is certainly very interesting. I believe his is non-stick but I think they're available without that too. I don't know whether any special cooking techniques are "regulated out of existence" by this prevention of overheating, which is said to cut off the heat around 250°C.


Demeyere is great for induction. Any line from the Industry and above are excellent choices. Just got 2 pans recently and they are outstanding. You cannot go wrong here.

Cheers.


----------



## rickbern

Michi said:


> I think pans are much like tradesmen's tools. The difference between a Hilti and a Black & Decker is striking. You get what you pay for.
> 
> I once dropped a Hilti electric drill (which weighed north of 10 kg) from the 13th floor of a building. It had a 12 mm drill bit attached. The Hilti landed on concrete with the drill bit pointing down. The drill bit was bent. And the Hilti never noticed…


And you expect us to trust you to hold a knife?


----------



## Michi

rickbern said:


> And you expect us to trust you to hold a knife?


Given that you are in another continent, I trust that you are quite safe during the times I'm holding a knife


----------



## Lars

RockyBasel said:


> I’m live in CH, induction country.for induction, is it fair to surmise that the posts on this thread recommend All Clad for induction stoves. I don’t want to hijack the OP’s thread, but urgent need to buy a new pan- currently I have and 1 good all clad and an amazing Mauviel with a cast iron handle - incredibly heavy and great on gas. But useless here in induction-centric CH - just sits in the basement
> 
> Is there a better induction alternative to All Cladnstainless?


I’m really happy with the Spring Brigade Premium line from CH. I have 5 pieces and they work great on induction. Everything from searing a steak to making risotto they never leave me wanting anything else.


----------



## DavidPF

rickbern said:


> And you expect us to trust you to hold a knife?


I think it was just an educational service, advising us that if we didn't already have "Drills" on our Do Not Catch list (along with knives, items of unknown temperature, and whatever else) that we should consider adding them.


----------



## RockyBasel

MarcelNL said:


> I used to own a Mauviel copper sauce pan that I LOVED for it's heat transfer that was somehow so smooth, even and naturally feeling that it spoke to me. Alas, it did not work in induction so I gave it to my best friend.
> BTW re-tinning can be done DIY


Mine is sitting in the basement - but I loved it on gas, it’s so heavy with cast iron handle!


----------



## RockyBasel

Thanks for the recommendation- I got a de buyer copper induction pan today! Can’t wait to get it next week


----------



## MarcelNL

NICE! looking forward to hear how you like it, I'm in need for a new one that works on induction.
So far half of our new pans does not do well on induction regardless of the info on the labels, the green pans will go back as they nowhere near conduct well enough, it's as if I'm heating them on an electric coil plate...takes forever and they do not get anywhere near hot enough.


----------



## RockyBasel

MarcelNL said:


> NICE! looking forward to hear how you like it, I'm in need for a new one that works on induction.
> So far half of our new pans does not do well on induction regardless of the info on the labels, the green pans will go back as they nowhere near conduct well enough, it's as if I'm heating them on an electric coil plate...takes forever and they do not get anywhere near hot enough.


 My hopes are not super high, but it did say it works on induction. My all clad works really well on induction- but it’s getting old and showing some burn spots


----------



## DavidPF

MarcelNL said:


> the green pans will go back as they nowhere near conduct well enough, it's as if I'm heating them on an electric coil plate...takes forever and they do not get anywhere near hot enough.


I'm guessing they are aluminum with a thin bit of steel on the bottom?
I wonder if they wanted to prevent overheating and took it too far, or if they were just saving money using less steel.


----------



## big_adventure

RockyBasel said:


> My hopes are not super high, but it did say it works on induction. My all clad works really well on induction- but it’s getting old and showing some burn spots



It's De buyer, they are pretty reputable. As long as the bottom is flat and magnetic it should work fine on even cheap induction. Not saying that's what you have!


----------



## inferno

is stainless good?

currently looking into these:
fiskars norden, stainless with alu core.





and fiskars all steel pure, 3 layers stainless.


----------



## McMan

inferno said:


> is stainless good?
> 
> currently looking into these:
> fiskars norden, stainless with alu core.
> View attachment 114417
> 
> 
> and fiskars all steel pure, 3 layers stainless.
> View attachment 114419


Those weird ridges are going to fill up with  and be a PITA to clean.


----------



## inferno

what if one prefills the the ridges with  then no more  can get in there in use right.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

inferno said:


> is stainless good?
> 
> currently looking into these:
> fiskars norden, stainless with alu core.
> View attachment 114417
> 
> 
> and fiskars all steel pure, 3 layers stainless.
> View attachment 114419



I don't have induction and I don't know if this counts as "high end" unless that is defined as quality, but my current favorite stainless cookware is Made In brand. I've loved everything I've gotten from them.

They say their stainless is all induction compatible and I can't think why it wouldn't be.

Stainless Clad Frying Pan

Just thought I'd offer it as a possibility.


----------



## big_adventure

If you have a shop to see the stuff (I know, I know, who goes to "shops" anymore), just bring a magnet and a flat piece of card or a box or something. If it the magnet sticks firm to the base, and the base is flat, basically any induction will work. Simple as that.


----------



## MarcelNL

HumbleHomeCook said:


> They say their stainless is all induction compatible and I can't think why it wouldn't be.



The problem is that there is no clear distinction between 'compatible' 'designed for' as far as I can tell until now...I have some pans showing an induction coil that work so-so and some that are designed for induction and work perfectly.
My main issue, unless I am missing a piece of info, is that the only way to find out is to try.


----------



## MarcelNL

big_adventure said:


> If you have a shop to see the stuff (I know, I know, who goes to "shops" anymore), just bring a magnet and a flat piece of card or a box or something. If it the magnet sticks firm to the base, and the base is flat, basically any induction will work. Simple as that.


I beg to differ, with what I know now there is more nuance than a binary 'stick' or 'not-stick'. Both types I currently have will make the magnet stick well but only the good type will work nicely on induction..


----------



## inferno

yeah people and lets not forget we have several types of magnetisms. ferromagnetic, paramagnetic and diamagnetic. we simply cant discriminate between the different types. its magnetoracist.


----------



## MarcelNL

thinking more about it, why do makers of induction pans not have to state the max current/flux the pan is capable of sustaining? The makers of induction stoves surely state the power rating of the coils they use


----------



## inferno

HumbleHomeCook said:


> I don't have induction and I don't know if this counts as "high end" unless that is defined as quality, but my current favorite stainless cookware is Made In brand. I've loved everything I've gotten from them.
> 
> They say their stainless is all induction compatible and I can't think why it wouldn't be.
> 
> Stainless Clad Frying Pan
> 
> Just thought I'd offer it as a possibility.



to be honest i dont really know what a high end frying pan is. those fiskars looks pretty high end to me. i only use cast iron. i have 2 jøtul from norway, the no19 is my fav. these have not been made for many years and i found them all rusted up. but like new. then i have a skeppshult from sweden and its much lower qual imo. and its the best we now make. 

then we have the cheap **** from the supermarkets, that have spot welded handles and thin bottoms that will warp pretty fast.

then everything coated, this is by definition **** to me at least. teflon, ceramic, asslube, i dont care.

i'd say if its the handle is well adhered to the pan. and its a solid construction in general then its high end. there is only high end and ****. thats it. 

and my kinda own quality level is this: can i effectively kill an elk with the implement without it stopping to work (like in a traffic accident), then its good imo. i buy my laptops this way. yeah you must be able to kill an elk with it without it braking = good quality imo. what can i say.

and then of course the product should do what its intended to do too on top of that. buy hey i'm not a pro chef.


----------



## DT74

Mauviel, buy the thickest copper


----------



## daizee

I've collected a bunch of vintage Griswold cast iron. It's much thinner than the usual junk from Lodge, and ground smooth. But the prices have been driven up. Work great on induction, of course.

Recently I bought a brand new Stargazer 12" (equiv to a Griswold #9), and it is excellent. Good weight for it's substantial size, ground smooth, excellent design. My only complaint is that the handle is too long.


----------



## jankdc

daizee said:


> I've collected a bunch of vintage Griswold cast iron. It's much thinner than the usual junk from Lodge, and ground smooth. But the prices have been driven up. Work great on induction, of course.
> 
> Recently I bought a brand new Stargazer 12" (equiv to a Griswold #9), and it is excellent. Good weight for it's substantial size, ground smooth, excellent design. My only complaint is that the handle is too long.


I moved away from my antique cast iron after switching to induction. It didn't heat very evenly. My favorite is the Fissler Original Profi line for induction.


----------



## BazookaJoe

Decided to get my feet wet with my first carbon steel frypan:

https://www.amazon.com/Debuyer-Carb...an+39.5cm&qid=1613578268&s=home-garden&sr=1-1

Hoping it will be a step up from the cast iron I've been using.


----------



## DavidPF

inferno said:


> is stainless good?
> 
> currently looking into these:
> fiskars norden, stainless with alu core.
> 
> and fiskars all steel pure, 3 layers stainless.


Stainless with aluminum core, when it's well made and with enough aluminum in there, is better than all stainless because it heats better. Between your two, I would get the Norden model for sure - smooth normal interior and aluminum core.


----------



## Pertti

inferno said:


> to be honest i dont really know what a high end frying pan is. those fiskars looks pretty high end to me. i only use cast iron. i have 2 jøtul from norway, the no19 is my fav. these have not been made for many years and i found them all rusted up. but like new. then i have a skeppshult from sweden and its much lower qual imo. and its the best we now make.



I have owned a few from the Fiskars Norden steel line of pans. Nice pans and has a little some nice thickness added compared to the flimsier US all-clad d3 pans for example, but I'd advice to going for the real thing right away, so stainless lined. The Norden pans have a ceramic coating that starts as non-stick, but will quickly degrade and start performing more like a stainless pan. They will be a tad easier to clean though even after the degradation of the nonstick properties, but yeah, just go for the real deal. I gave mine to my brother after I bought Falk CopperCore, like magic I had no use for the Norden clad pans anymore. 

I have kept that new steel "pure" line in my hands at a local store too and it has a thick bottom and looks a-okey, but the handle wasn't the most comfortable to me and it seemed to have a little give in the handle attachment kind of, nothing too bad but still. Almost bought the 24cm thick bottom though. At least its made in Finland too, like the Norden serier is also, so thats nice.. but from recycled steel in the case of the pure, which is a little suspect to me? what the hell have they melted to that? Don't know any better about that though.


----------



## DavidPF

I didn't know it had non-stick coating. Skip it then, find something like it but without non-stick.


----------



## Pertti

DavidPF said:


> I didn't know it had non-stick coating. Skip it then, find something like it but without non-stick.



Yes it indeed has that, Fiskars calls it treatment. I bought the pans as a gateway drug to real stainless basically myself 

So the steel pure that you were checking @inferno , it has a thick aluminum sandwich bottom and will heat quite very evenly, even if you have induction like I do. It will also store quite much heat and so take more time to heat up and down compared to the clad pans that'll be heating less evenly in comparison, but faster both ways. I have a Fissler 28cm low roaster for that kind of thick "fry-pans".

On induction I would suggest to get at least one thick bottom. I like my Falk coppercores, but could also understand someone not loving them, especially on some induction cooktop with not all that big inductors..


----------



## coxhaus

So, I bought one of these 9.5-inch Matfer Bourgeat carbon steel pans off Amazon with everybody else on this site. I have been using this pan for a little bit and have noticed I have to be careful with the heat as I can burn fairly easily. I compared it to a couple of my older carbon pans and noticed the steel is thinner. I have a 7 inch and a crepe older pan in the pictures with thicker steel. I think my older carbon pans are easier to use on my gas stove being thicker. And my 12-inch DE Buyer is much thicker which could just be it is so much larger of a pan. Is there a reason for a thinner pan? Would it have a special purpose?

I kind of like this size. Does anybody make a thicker carbon pan like my older ones?


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

coxhaus said:


> So, I bought one of these 9.5-inch Matfer Bourgeat carbon steel pans off Amazon with everybody else on this site. I have been using this pan for a little bit and have noticed I have to be careful with the heat as I can burn fairly easily. I compared it to a couple of my older carbon pans and noticed the steel is thinner. I have a 7 inch and a crepe older pan in the pictures with thicker steel. I think my older carbon pans are easier to use on my gas stove being thicker. And my 12-inch DE Buyer is much thicker which could just be it is so much larger of a pan. Is there a reason for a thinner pan? Would it have a special purpose?
> 
> View attachment 115531
> View attachment 115532



I surely haven't looked into all the different brands/lines but as I recall, Matfer's are among the thicker options currently out there. I want to say I remember it being 3mm and many are 2.5mm. It's been a while since I looked into it so I may be wrong.

Thinner is mainly for weight savings.

Just ease back on the heat a bit.


----------



## SeattleB

I bought a Matfer Bourgeat before Christmas so it's the current generation. It measures 3mm in the sidewall; I don't know if the bottom is thicker. No problems with burning anything. Nicely nonstick at this point.


----------



## coxhaus

I have just been cooking with my older carbon steel pans for so long that the thinner steel seems different. I think the thicker steel is more forgiving when cooking at least to me any ways. I guess you can't buy the older thicker carbon steel pans any more as I would prefer them.


----------



## 9fingeredknife

Big fan of “made in” pots and pans. Stainless and carbon are both amazing, haven’t tried the copper yet though. Definitely worth the investment


----------



## coxhaus

Just looking at the "made in" pans, they seem thinner than Matfer Bourgeat carbon steel pan I just ordered. Nowhere near as thick as my old carbon pans.


----------



## GeneH

DeBuyer carbon pans on glass electric cooktop. I'll never go back to anything but carbon (unless I move to cast iron) for frying. Sauces in the stainless pans. Thanks KKF for pointing me in the right direction years ago.

Wait! How old is thread?!?!?!


----------



## coxhaus

I do like the idea of a "made in" carbon roasting pan. I just ordered an All-Clad stainless steel roasting pan so I don't want another one but I might like a carbon steel roasting pan better. What do you guys think?


----------



## rmrf

coxhaus said:


> I do like the idea of a "made in" carbon roasting pan. I just ordered an All-Clad stainless steel roasting pan so I don't want another one but I might like a carbon steel roasting pan better. What do you guys think?


I have an all-clad ss induction safe roasting pan. It does what I want, but I don't use large roasting pans all that often. If I'm roasting something, I almost always use half sheet or quarter sheet trays. If I'm braising something or I want to roast with liquid, I use a pot. The only times I use a roasting pan is when I need to also heat from the bottom on my stove top. I thought I would use it for making gravy without needing to wash a saucepan, but I rarely do it.

That said, I do love my little metal oval roasting pans. I love them for reheating. I used to use ceramic ones but I cracked two of them and my other ones have hairline cracks. I just don't trust them anymore...


----------



## CA_cook

I am really enjoying the De Buyer Mineral Pro csrbon steel pan. The only issue is that it is almost as hDavy and by Field cast iron skillet. Both are first rate cookware items and are nicely non-stick after proper seasoning.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

Like @rmrf, I rarely use a roasting pan any more. I'm almost always using trays or a Dutch oven.

Now what I am contemplating is a saute pan.


----------



## coxhaus

HumbleHomeCook said:


> Like @rmrf, I rarely use a roasting pan any more. I'm almost always using trays or a Dutch oven.
> 
> Now what I am contemplating is a saute pan.



I bought an old Viking 3.4 qt sauté pan made in the USA the 3-ply version and I like the size and shape for a small household. It comes with a lid and the lid fits the 9.5 Matfer Bourgeat carbon steel pan not perfect but good enough for me to use with a fry pan. I make most of my sauces now in this pan. I have several older LeCreuset pots which were my mom's so they are really old but I am having more fun using the Viking right now.

I guess I should add my LeCreuset pots are bigger and with covid now I am trying to down size so I don't have to eat so many left overs. I look forward to cooking for friends in the future with larger pots.


----------



## TM001

HumbleHomeCook said:


> Like @rmrf, I rarely use a roasting pan any more. I'm almost always using trays or a Dutch oven.
> 
> Now what I am contemplating is a saute pan.



My most used pan (even with the two new carbon pans) is a 3.5 quart Mauviel SS saute pan. Great for sauteing vegetables, braises, sauces, you name it. Get a saute pan; 3.5 quart is a good size for cooking for 2 - 4.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

TM001 said:


> My most used pan (even with the two new carbon pans) is a 3.5 quart Mauviel SS saute pan. Great for sauteing vegetables, braises, sauces, you name it. Get a saute pan; 3.5 quart is a good size for cooking for 2 - 4.



Yeah, I want the Made In pan and it's been out of stock for a bit or I'd likely already have it. I'm sure I'll get one.


----------



## DavidPF

coxhaus said:


> I do like the idea of a "made in" carbon roasting pan. I just ordered an All-Clad stainless steel roasting pan so I don't want another one but I might like a carbon steel roasting pan better. What do you guys think?


IMO roasting pans are not worth big money or hard thinking, because their job is much easier than that of a pan that sits on direct heat all the time. Right size? Won't break? No special problem to get it clean? Done.

I just realized there are probably non-stick-coated roasting pans. Definitely avoid if you see one. Enamel is fine, uncoated is fine.


----------



## CA_cook

CA_cook said:


> I am really enjoying the De Buyer Mineral Pro csrbon steel pan. The only issue is that it is almost as heavy as my Field cast iron skillet. Both are first rate cookware items and are nicely non-stick after proper seasoning.


----------



## coxhaus

I have measured the 9.5 De Buyer Mineral Pro carbon steel pan and it is indeed 3mm. I just need to learn to cook on it.

Thanks, HumbleHomeCook I do like the size.

It is a small pan and I need to start with the gas on low on my big burners and things will work better for me. I am treating it like a fry pan and it really is a small heat sink compared to my larger pans.


----------



## aboynamedsuita

coxhaus said:


> I have measured the 9.5 De Buyer Mineral Pro carbon steel pan and it is indeed 3mm. I just need to learn to cook on it.
> 
> Thanks, HumbleHomeCook I do like the size.
> 
> It is a small pan and I need to start with the gas on low on my big burners and things will work better for me. I am treating it like a fry pan and it really is a small heat sink compared to my larger pans.


From what I remember when I got my debuyer mineral B pans (c. 2013?), they are 3mm thick if 26cm diameter or larger, or 2.5mm if <26cm. The grill pans, crepe pans and “country” (deep) pans were 2.5mm. The specs may have changed since then (?) as at the time only the 36cm pan had a helper handle, but I think I’ve heard of some people say their 32cm pan has one too


----------



## TM001

HumbleHomeCook said:


> Yeah, I want the Made In pan and it's been out of stock for a bit or I'd likely already have it. I'm sure I'll get one.



I figured as much but since you are a big reason why i now have two carbon pans, I figured a little shove can't hurt.


----------



## TM001

coxhaus said:


> I have measured the 9.5 De Buyer Mineral Pro carbon steel pan and it is indeed 3mm. I just need to learn to cook on it.
> 
> Thanks, HumbleHomeCook I do like the size.
> 
> It is a small pan and I need to start with the gas on low on my big burners and things will work better for me. I am treating it like a fry pan and it really is a small heat sink compared to my larger pans.



I have a 10.75 and 9.5 inch and the first time I used the 9.5 I was not ready for how much more quickly it heated compared to the larger one. It works great though, seasoned easily, and is great when cooking steak or such just for two. Just need to pay a little closer attention to it than the bigger one.


----------



## orangehero

If we're talking high-end I really like my Spring USA Blackline Carbon Steel Pan. It's carbon steel, but about the thickness of cast iron. Welded cast steel handle and fit and finish is superb. Only complaint I might have is the handle is a pretty long and I'm pretty sure they are manufactured in asia despite the misleading name. But it's definitely a step above the more common carbon steel pans. Also lifetime warranty.


----------



## coxhaus

orangehero said:


> If we're talking high-end I really like my Spring USA Blackline Carbon Steel Pan. It's carbon steel, but about the thickness of cast iron. Welded cast steel handle and fit and finish is superb. Only complaint I might have is the handle is a pretty long and I'm pretty sure they are manufactured in asia despite the misleading name. But it's definitely a step above the more common carbon steel pans. Also lifetime warranty.



They seem to be made in China so I won't buy one.


----------



## mikemac

Interesting that I don't see much chatter for Volrath - checked a local restaurant supply yesterday and a 12.5" carbon skillet was $38


----------



## McMan

mikemac said:


> Interesting that I don't see much chatter for Volrath - checked a local restaurant supply yesterday and a 12.5" carbon skillet was $38


The 12.5" Volrath is on sale for $25 (!) at katom:








Vollrath 58930 12 1/2" Carbon Steel Frying Pan w/ Solid Metal Handle


Buy the Vollrath 58930 Frying Pan at KaTom. Same Day Shipping on thousands of restaurant supplies. 3 decades of satisfied, repeat customers.




www.katom.com





Made in USA. At that price, might be worth a look...


----------



## coxhaus

A couple of things on my 9.5 De Buyer Mineral Pro carbon steel pan is I have included here a picture of me measuring the pan thickness. I believe it is 3 mm even though it is a 24 cm pan.

I had some carbon build up on my new pan and I saw a video using coarse salt to scrub it off using a paper towel. I tried it and it seemed to work. I heated the pan first. Here is a picture after getting the carbon off. My pan is very smooth on the bottom now.


----------



## btbyrd

Perhaps we should start a low-end cookware thread where all the commodity carbon steel people can talk to each other.


----------



## coxhaus

I think I posted in the wrong thread. We should move it to the9.5 De Buyer Mineral Pro carbon steel pan. Can we move it.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

@btbyrd 

It's all relative.

I guess back in November when you were talking about Lodge it was okay?






High end frying pan recommendation


I recently went through a similar weighing of the pros and cons of cookware and wound up buying the Demeyere Industry 5 set from Sur La Table. It heats evenly. It cleans easily as long as you let it head up first. No rivets to clean around. I use Bar Keeper's Friend and the pan looks brand...




www.kitchenknifeforums.com





Or in January when talking about de Buyer just like @coxhaus is now?






High end frying pan recommendation


You mean, D3 with a much thicker middle layer? It seems like that would be nice, yes. I don't know if there's a good reason why they don't. Maybe there's some reason why it doesn't make sense? (The obvious reason is $$ ... I just meant if there's another reason.) Yes, thats what I mean. I see...




www.kitchenknifeforums.com


----------



## inferno

does anyone here regard cast iron as high end? or does it depend?


----------



## btbyrd

If you make it inefficiently enough in small enough batches it becomes high end.


----------



## btbyrd

In all seriousness, some people like to pretend that there's high end cast iron -- mostly companies who want you to buy a 12" skillet for $200 when you can get a better one for $25. Or collectors who want to justify the fact that they spent way too much money and time to obtain their precious Griswold or whatever. All these people harp on the same feature that I've found to be totally irrelevant to nonstick performance: a polished interior. Many of these same companies like to tout the "lighter weight" of their cast iron pans, as if that's anything other than a drawback. "This pan won't sear as good as yours will, but my buddy took a belt sander to it for 5 minutes, so it's got to be worth $180 more, right?!" I will take cheap cast iron over fake high end version every time. It's not like the pans exemplify artistry or craftsmanship, unlike, say, forged carbon steel pans like Blu Skillet. Those pans aren't going to cook any better than cheap carbon pans, but at least you know what you're paying for (labor, aesthetics, and a small amount of hype).

And to respond to HumbleHomeCook's barb above, I only discussed Lodge in order to point out that high end cast iron is mostly a marketing gimmick that doesn't deliver any sort of practical cooking advantage. And I'm not sure what your second quotation from me was supposed to illustrate, as I was answering coxhaus's question about the comparative merits of D5, D7, and Carbon Core.


----------



## inferno

i have my old norwegian jøtul no 19. its 3-4 kilos. i regard this one as my high end pan. because its beefy and indestructible.
then my newer swedish skeppshult is a bit lighter and its a bit worse finished. but these pans are like 100€ and its extremely coarse textured. the jøtul is at least somewhat smooth.

a few years ago i bought my dad a cast iron pan from "ica maxi" for like 17€, fairly smooth, medium weight, solid construction. i felt it was kinda high end to be honest. and it will last for like 7 lifes.


----------



## Michi

"High end"—besides "high quality/performance"—often equates to "rare" and/or "expensive". I very much doubt that a Finex skillet performs much better than a Lodge one. (The Finex costs about 6-7 times as much.)

But the Finex is an awful lot prettier.

No different from kitchen knives, really. Beyond some point, the extra dollars aren't for extra performance.


----------



## mikemac

Plus $16 shipping to my home zip, so about the same.

And my $0.02 tip for the day...if you'r this deep into knives that you read this forum...don't take your wallet into a restaurant supply store....


LOL



McMan said:


> The 12.5" Volrath is on sale for $25 (!) at katom:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vollrath 58930 12 1/2" Carbon Steel Frying Pan w/ Solid Metal Handle
> 
> 
> Buy the Vollrath 58930 Frying Pan at KaTom. Same Day Shipping on thousands of restaurant supplies. 3 decades of satisfied, repeat customers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.katom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Made in USA. At that price, might be worth a look...


----------



## BillHanna

I fudging loooooooove The Restaurant Store. I plot out my lottery backyard there. Roller grill, cotton candy machine, reach in cooler, sandwich station, etc.


----------



## coxhaus

McMan said:


> The 12.5" Volrath is on sale for $25 (!) at katom:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vollrath 58930 12 1/2" Carbon Steel Frying Pan w/ Solid Metal Handle
> 
> 
> Buy the Vollrath 58930 Frying Pan at KaTom. Same Day Shipping on thousands of restaurant supplies. 3 decades of satisfied, repeat customers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.katom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Made in USA. At that price, might be worth a look...



So how thick is the steel on these pans? Where in the US are they made?


----------



## aboynamedsuita

I’ve cooked fried eggs in modern lodge CI and gotten good release, it’s all about “learning” your pan/cookware and technique. Here is the mini 3.5” lodge with the 12cm (I had to flip the egg in the lodge since it had too much volume and didn’t cook as much on top)


----------



## MarcelNL

there is a law of diminishing returns, beyond that to me prices get just silly and things end up being expensive just because being expensive comes with a whiff of exclusivity. Matches made of gold inlaid with diamonds just to show you can afford them.
I like to be on the cutting edge of performance, which usually means expensive but not near borderline ridiculous (that I reserve for odd bits and bobs)


----------



## BazookaJoe

Got the 40cm De Buyer and I was really impressed... it's a SERIOUS pan! That was until the 200,000 btu propane burner I ordered was delivered, kind of dwarfed the 40cm. So naturally I ordered the big kahuna 50cm. It came tonight and it's a perfect fit. Can't wait to season it and put it to use... from pancakes to paella, it will most likely replace the cast iron I've been using. I'm keeping the 40cm too, fits good on the induction burner.


----------



## McMan

coxhaus said:


> So how thick is the steel on these pans? Where in the US are they made?


No idea. Just going on what the description says...


----------



## DavidPF

Michi said:


> No different from kitchen knives, really. Beyond some point, the extra dollars aren't for extra performance.


This collector dilemma (i.e. "There is literally no way another knife could benefit me in any way; now what?") seems to be most often solved by moving the goalposts, re-re-redefining "performance" until it just means "Unless two knives are literally indistinguishable in every way, I want both". As soon as "performance" stops meaning "does the job measurably better, as an unbiased third party would define the word 'better' ", ... well, there's a superficially suitable emoji for this, but I'm not sure if it has the right connotation. So I'll just smile.


----------



## DavidPF

BazookaJoe said:


> So naturally I ordered the big kahuna 50cm


You are certainly right - that is not a small kahuna, nor even a medium one.


----------



## DavidPF

coxhaus said:


> So how thick is the steel on these pans? Where in the US are they made?


Did you think they'd be lying and the pans were actually made somewhere else? 

Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Unless they have more than one factory.

One review on Google Maps is advice from a truck driver to other truck drivers on how to make their Vollrath pick-ups as easy and efficient as possible. Apparently the forklift operators there are willing to make that little extra effort to help keep your load organized.

Other reviews say don't buy the non-stick Vollrath pans sold at the fairground - they soon stick, and the warranty doesn't cover the nonstickiness. Consider yourself warned.


----------



## BazookaJoe

I seasoned my new De Buyer carbon steel pans per the best YouTube videos yesterday and set out today to take one on it’s virgin journey of a new meal... paella! The cooking performance (with the big propane burner) was exceptional. The chicken thighs did not stick to the pan at all and after the dish was done (with some developed soccarat), it cleaned up easily in a hot pan with plain water and a stiff Tampico brush. I am now a big believer in carbon steel. Can’t wait to try them out again.


----------



## coxhaus

aboynamedsuita said:


> I’ve cooked fried eggs in modern lodge CI and gotten good release, it’s all about “learning” your pan/cookware and technique. Here is the mini 3.5” lodge with the 12cm (I had to flip the egg in the lodge since it had too much volume and didn’t cook as much on top)
> View attachment 115949
> 
> View attachment 115950



I like small carbon pans for eggs. I have an old 7-inch carbon pan which I can fry 1 egg or 2 eggs and it is very non-stick. The egg will slide around in the pan as you cook it. It is a real old pan probably 40 years or older that was my mom's pan.


----------



## coxhaus

BazookaJoe said:


> I seasoned my new De Buyer carbon steel pans per the best YouTube videos yesterday and set out today to take one on it’s virgin journey of a new meal... paella! The cooking performance (with the big propane burner) was exceptional. The chicken thighs did not stick to the pan at all and after the dish was done (with some developed soccarat), it cleaned up easily in a hot pan with plain water and a stiff Tampico brush. I am now a big believer in carbon steel. Can’t wait to try them out again. View attachment 116239
> View attachment 116240



Did you season it in the oven or over the propane? 

The seasoning looks real good to me, better than my carbon pans.


----------



## coxhaus

DavidPF said:


> Did you think they'd be lying and the pans were actually made somewhere else?
> 
> Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Unless they have more than one factory.
> 
> One review on Google Maps is advice from a truck driver to other truck drivers on how to make their Vollrath pick-ups as easy and efficient as possible. Apparently the forklift operators there are willing to make that little extra effort to help keep your load organized.
> 
> Other reviews say don't buy the non-stick Vollrath pans sold at the fairground - they soon stick, and the warranty doesn't cover the nonstickiness. Consider yourself warned.



No, I didn't think they were lying. I just could not figure it out on the computer. I don't care about warranty. I just want a good pan.

I threw away a Le Creuset 9-inch pan. We had it about 15 years and my wife used it a lot. We wore a spot through on the enamel probably using metal accessories. And now my wife has come around to the 7-inch carbon pan. She never would use it when we had the Le Creuset pan. But she likes it now.


----------



## BazookaJoe

coxhaus said:


> Did you season it in the oven or over the propane?
> 
> The seasoning looks real good to me, better than my carbon pans.



Both. First you heat it on the propane, very high heat. The steel changes to blue color, then back to a dull silver. When cool, heat in the oven at 200F, then very lightly oiled (canola), wiped virtually dry. Back into the oven at 500F for 2 hours. Shut off the oven and let the pan cool in there for another 2 hours.


----------



## mikemac

Website only says 'Made in USA', but the company is hq'ed in WI
FWIW, I've been going to this particular LA,CA based supply store for 30+/- years asn as long as I can remember they've stocked Vollrath products.
I can't specifically speak to thickness, but the 12 1/2" was a beast. And side by side with the Lodge carbon steel pan (10" I think) the Vollrath is considerably thicker. [Lodge is known to be thinner than the major brands, not problematic thinner, but home use thinner, IMHO)



coxhaus said:


> So how thick is the steel on these pans? Where in the US are they made?


----------



## valdim

Guys, what do you think about the Anolon Nouvelle Copper Stainless Steel range? I guess it is not example of the "high end", but may be somebody has experience?
Pls, share.


----------



## rickbern

Personally, I have not clue one. But...

These guys are somewhat reliable in their opinions. Somewhere on that site they have blurb reviews of a gazillion different options of stainless clad cookware. 

The Best Nonstick Frying Pan: Everything You Need to Know Before You Buy

Tinstaafl. 

Google it if you’re not familiar with the phrase.


----------



## rickbern

Valdim, looked at your profile

njama takova nešto kato bezplaten objad


----------



## valdim

rickbern said:


> Valdim, looked at your profile
> 
> njama takova nešto kato bezplaten objad


Yeah, znam.


----------



## Jovidah

valdim said:


> Guys, what do you think about the Anolon Nouvelle Copper Stainless Steel range? I guess it is not example of the "high end", but may be somebody has experience?
> Pls, share.


Having no handson experience but from the looks of hte market materials the thin copper layer is just there to make you think you're buying copper performance... in essence it's still a bog standard aluminium sandwich bottom pan with a tiny bit of copper thrown in to make it look better than it is.


----------



## Michi

The Anolon Nouvelle got a pretty good review here. Seems like it’s decent quality for the price.


----------



## valdim

As far as i know from this post of @Sdo , he has a positive experience with this Anolon's range.


Sdo said:


> If looking for nonstick and if available for you check Anolon Nouvelle Copper skillet. I got one and it is very very good.


----------



## Sdo

valdim said:


> As far as i know from this post of @Sdo , he has a positive experience with this Anolon's range.


This is a very good pan IMHO. It is heavy and solid, very responsive and it surprisingly works quite well searing steaks or cooking crispy bacon. Also very good with fish ( crispy skin guaranteed ). Easiest pan I have ever had cleaning wise. Aesthetically it really is a very good looking piece! Again, just my opinion!

Did you manage to have the Paderno and use it?

Cheers!


----------



## valdim

Sdo said:


> This is a very good pan IMHO. It is heavy and solid, very responsive and it surprisingly works quite well searing steaks or cooking crispy bacon. Also very good with fish ( crispy skin guaranteed ). Easiest pan I have ever had cleaning wise. Aesthetically it really is a very good looking piece! Again, just my opinion!
> 
> Did you manage to have the Paderno and use it?
> 
> Cheers!


Are you talking about the Nouvelle Copper SS frying pan or about the non-stick from the same series?


Sdo said:


> Did you manage to have the Paderno and use it?


Not yet...I sent some questions to their CS. I guess it is due to Easter they did not reply yet.


----------



## Sdo

My bad, I am talking about the non-stick, no experience with the SS. My apologies.

Yeah, I would say Easter's fault. Usually they are responsive and fast.

Cheers!


----------



## deskjockey

Premium cast iron has its place in the world of Skillets and related things like Dutch Ovens IMHO.


----------



## BazookaJoe

It seems the addiction to Japanese knives also applies to carbon steel pans. As I already have a 19.5" carbon steel De Buyer pan (which I love). I was online looking for a smaller version, with a handle. I came across a 19.5" pan with a handle from a maker I'd never heard from before, Paderno World Cuisine. Did some research and found good reviews. The price was really low for a pan this size (it was listed as last one so that is typical for Amazon), so I bought it. It came in a destroyed box but luckily the pan was not damaged. Side by side with my De Buyer, they seemed about the same. Thickness was 3mm for the Paderno, 3.25mm for the De Buyer. I did the blueing heat treatment on my outdoor propane burner then 2 oil seasoning treatments at 500 deg on my grill as the pan couldn't fit it the oven. I hope to give it a try cooking soon, then I'll have to decide which giant pan I want to keep!


----------



## Towerguy

Michi said:


> "High end"—besides "high quality/performance"—often equates to "rare" and/or "expensive". I very much doubt that a Finex skillet performs much better than a Lodge one. (The Finex costs about 6-7 times as much.)
> 
> But the Finex is an awful lot prettier.
> 
> No different from kitchen knives, really. Beyond some point, the extra dollars aren't for extra performance.


I totally agree.


----------



## tcmx3

BazookaJoe said:


> It seems the addiction to Japanese knives also applies to carbon steel pans.



just pans in general lol. Ive now gotten an embarrassing amount, to the point where I started giving some away. my parents have been the primary beneficiaries, getting a smaller Stargazer and some Matfer stuff.

anyway as it stands my two choices are, depending on exactly what you want/need:

1. Demeyere Proline 12.6" - an absolute behemoth of a pan but the performance is real
2. Stargazer 12" - it's the right shape, size and weight, plus the handle is the best of any of the cast iron stuff. also it's half the price of the Demeyere. 

if not for the evenness of its heating I would say get the slightly smaller Proline skillet, and maybe I should have, but I gotta say I *really* appreciate having the room. you might as well be cooking on a flat griddle pan you have so much space. this makes it exceptional for frying chicken, making multiple burgers at once, you can even do two ribeyes in the thing, slam them both down cold and you'll still keep temp and get them seared.


----------



## Tristan

BazookaJoe said:


> View attachment 135233



Very nice blueing. Can you walk me through your process? Thank you


----------



## BazookaJoe

Tristan said:


> Very nice blueing. Can you walk me through your process? Thank you


After a good cleaning, see:

High end frying pan recommendation

Don't know if you can do the first heating on a kitchen stove with pans this large and thick. My propane burner is 200000 BTU and it still took about 15 minutes. Plus this pan was way too big for the oven, so I had do the oil seasoning on my grill (2 times).


----------



## daizee

Dunno if I posted on this before because Pandemic Time, but I received a large (12") Stargzer Cast Iron last fall and it's very good if you're into cast iron. The interior is properly finished, it's a reasonable weight for it's size, not over thick. My only quibble is the handle is REALLY long. Like uselessly long, so it gets in the way, especially since it has a small far-side handle too. This is correctable, though I haven't modified it. I think it's as good as my vintage Griswold collection, possibly better except for the excessively long handle. (the Gris handles overheat, so they're not perfect either). Tho the Gris stuff is deeply seasoned, and I'm only getting started on adding to the factory Stargazer seasoning.


----------



## deskjockey

A longer handle on a cast iron skillet is something I would like, at least compared to my Lodge options.


----------



## daizee

deskjockey said:


> A longer handle on a cast iron skillet is something I would like, at least compared to my Lodge options.



Great if you do camp or grill cooking, I bet (I don't). They make a 10" and 12", but I warn you: they're not even in the same ballpark. They're not even playing the same game. You'll be ruined for cast iron. I won't touch Lodge with a 10-foot scraper.


----------



## MarcelNL

I recently saw a documentary about a mom and pop factory making carbon steel pans largely by hand with few tools, the pans are being spun, and someone forces the edge around a wooden mold with a big lever...Netherton Foundry,

Did anyone ever use one of their pan?


----------



## rickbern

MarcelNL said:


> I recently saw a documentary about a mom and pop factory making carbon steel pans largely by hand with few tools, the pans are being spun, and someone forces the edge around a wooden mold with a big lever...Netherton Foundry,
> 
> Did anyone ever use one of their pan?


Marcel, here’s another video about spinning pans. These ones are a fair bit more expensive I’m afraid!


----------



## Jville

btbyrd said:


> I'm curious what uses make copper worth paying for. My regular All-Clad is plenty responsive over gas and induction, and I don't know that copper would provide much of a real-world advantage there even if it's technically superior. Regular All-Clad also heats evenly enough for my purposes. I do have a few clad copper pieces, but it's mostly because I got a good deal on a quality pan than because I thought they were especially great performers relative to non-copper. I just don't see the point. I can understand shelling out $300 for some enameled cast iron or for a high end donabe or something, but copper frying pans aren't something I can get my head around.


I’m not sure if you have used copper with tin lining, but it is a game changing combo for many things. Admittedly, I snubbed my nose at copper for a long time thinking it was perhaps just a bougie unpractical cooking vessel, until I used it. When it comes to frying I would generally not use it for that application and I don’t think I have ever used it to fry in. I would grab a cast iron or carbon steel, but you could use it to fry and I’m sure it would work wonderfully as long as you don’t let the heat get away from you. But as to your “I’m not sure what uses make copper worth paying for.” The evenness of heat distribution is far worth it IMO for many applications. For example sautéing onions or garlic, you can literally put them in the pan spread them out and go watch tv or prep other items while they cook without having to stir them or move them around in the pan at all. You can’t do that with stainless, cast iron, or carbon steel. There will be hot spots and you have to move them around and watch them. Same if you want to boil milk or cream. Put it in a copper sauce pan crank it on high and pour it when it comes to a boil without stirring or worrying if it will burn on the bottom, making jams and sauces absolute pleasure. I’m sure creamy grits would be a pleasure. And tin is more nonstick and easier to clean than stainless, but you can’t use heavy abrasives like steel wool or even green scrubby to clean it. So depending on how or what you cooked and if you let it sit there and get dried on it can be a pain to clean in that situation.


----------



## tcmx3

two general thoughts:

copper may be the best on paper, but I have found the high end of stainless to be close enough that Im glad to never have to polish a copper saucepan again. the responsiveness isnt there but the evenness is and that's enough for me. that said, a copper saucepan is *the* one of copper to buy if you want to go down that path IMO. the responsiveness, evenness, etc. is a real boon for certain things.

and two, the stargazer handles are only long by cast iron standards. compared to most good pans theyre the same or slightly shorter.


----------



## MarcelNL

I second the votes for copper, I had a very nice copper sauce pan...but then came induction.....and my best mate now has a perfectly fine copper sauce pan


----------



## sansho

for nonstick, i'm very happy with anolon nouvelle copper luxe.

a review: In-Depth Product Review: Anolon Nouvelle Copper Nonstick

the cheapest i've found them is bed bath and beyond. you can get 20% off single item coupons on demand by signing up to their email list (use a new address every time of course):









Official Online Coupons - Sign up for Printable Offers - Bed Bath & Beyond


Sign up for emails and get 20% off one in-store item! Have official printable and online coupons, product offers, savings events and more delivered to your inbox




offers.bedbathandbeyond.com





2 pan set (8.5" and 10"):
Bedding, Bath Towels, Cookware, Fine China, Wedding & GiftRegistry | Bed Bath & Beyond

matching lids if you want them:
Bedding, Bath Towels, Cookware, Fine China, Wedding & GiftRegistry | Bed Bath & Beyond


----------



## sansho

tcmx3 said:


> 1. Demeyere Proline 12.6" - an absolute behemoth of a pan but the performance is real



i really want a demeyere proline. does anyone have shopping tips? do sales happen anywhere? i'm in the US if that matters.


----------



## tcmx3

sansho said:


> i really want a demeyere proline. does anyone have shopping tips? do sales happen anywhere? i'm in the US if that matters.



it's possible to get a modest discount on them a few times a year from everything kitchens. I think I got 10 dollars off mine. a tiny discount but whatever, a few dollars is nothing in the long run with a pan like that which will genuinely last a lifetime.


----------



## deskjockey

tcmx3 said:


> two general thoughts:
> 
> copper may be the best on paper, but I have found the high end of stainless to be close enough that Im glad to never have to polish a copper saucepan again. the responsiveness isnt there but the evenness is and that's enough for me. that said, a copper saucepan is *the* one of copper to buy if you want to go down that path IMO. the responsiveness, evenness, etc. is a real boon for certain things.
> 
> and two, the stargazer handles are only long by cast iron standards. compared to most good pans theyre the same or slightly shorter.



A good stainless "clad" pan or skillet comes so close to copper it is hard to argue for copper. Generally though, the stainless clad at this level are priced so close to copper that most people won't buy them and they never learn how good they are.

Lagostina ACCADEMIA LAGOFUSION so far based on limited use, has exceeded my expectation and I can't imagine copper would have been better. Just last night I cooked something I have scorched more than once on the bottom and not only did I not scorch the bottom, it was so clean I could have wiped it out with a paper towel!

Demeyere Proline skillets are also top notch in this area.



sansho said:


> i really want a demeyere proline. does anyone have shopping tips? do sales happen anywhere? i'm in the US if that matters.



I think COVID craziness has affected pricing a lot in general. Pre-COVID, I found the ~9.5" Proline Skillet/Fry Pan on sale for $100. Today, I don't actively check pricing but, I don't recall seeing one on sale. CutleryandMore is where I believe I got mine.

Today, the 20% off coupon at Bed Bath and Beyond is probably the best you can do as long as it is a restricted item for the coupon.


----------



## Jville

deskjockey said:


> A good stainless "clad" pan or skillet comes so close to copper it is hard to argue for copper. Generally though, the stainless clad at this level are priced so close to copper that most people won't buy them and they never learn how good they are.
> 
> Lagostina ACCADEMIA LAGOFUSION so far based on limited use, has exceeded my expectation and I can't imagine copper would have been better. Just last night I cooked something I have scorched more than once on the bottom and not only did I not scorch the bottom, it was so clean I could have wiped it out with a paper towel!
> 
> Demeyere Proline skillets are also top notch in this area.
> 
> 
> 
> I think COVID craziness has affected pricing a lot in general. Pre-COVID, I found the ~9.5" Proline Skillet/Fry Pan on sale for $100. Today, I don't actively check pricing but, I don't recall seeing one on sale. CutleryandMore is where I believe I got mine.
> 
> Today, the 20% off coupon at Bed Bath and Beyond is probably the best you can do as long as it is a restricted item for the coupon.


Have you directly compared the Lagostina to a full copper tin lined skillet?


----------



## deskjockey

I don't have a thick copper skillet and my only tin lined pan is a ~2qt sauce pan. Most of mine is the 2.5mm thick stainless lined Mauviel line of Sauce Pans.

My tin lined copper sauce pan is at least 3mm thick and a joy to use. It is dead flat even from base to rim as best I can tell without scientific instruments.

I can't say the Lagostina ACCADEMIA LAGOFUSION is that even but, it is a different and larger pan. What I typically do is put it on an undersized burner and simmer stews. The simmer itself is consistent whether looking at the sides or center of the stew.

I say this coming from an uneven electric cooktop with poor temperature control.


----------



## sansho

deskjockey said:


> Today, the 20% off coupon at Bed Bath and Beyond is probably the best you can do as long as it is a restricted item for the coupon.



lol. demeyere is excluded.








Terms & Conditions | Bed Bath & Beyond


OXO at Bed Bath & Beyond




www.bedbathandbeyond.com


----------



## Luftmensch

deskjockey said:


> A longer handle on a cast iron skillet is something I would like, at least compared to my Lodge options.





daizee said:


> Great if you do camp or grill cooking, I bet (I don't). They make a 10" and 12", but I warn you: they're not even in the same ballpark. They're not even playing the same game. You'll be ruined for cast iron. I won't touch Lodge with a 10-foot scraper.



@daizee, can you expand on that?

I went through a long period of coveting the newer, sexier cast iron. To an extent, i still do. There is no doubt; they have more precise and refined manufacturing.

In Australia there isn't as a huge vintage market. Similarly, boutique cast iron does not have much of a presence either... and the shipping would be astronomical! I was excited when Lodge released their Blacklock line - not necessarily because they were 'better' than any of the other new generation cast iron (they are 'worse'). I was excited because Lodge have a big enough distribution network that it was inevitable Blacklock would be sold in Australia... and it now is. 

I eventually handled a Blacklock skillet in a store and was underwhelmed. It was a bit deflating! I know simply inspecting one is a far cry from cooking with it.... But the pan just felt insubstantial compared to the regular lodge offering. Certainly not what I have come to associate with cast iron - a thermal freight train. There is a strange irony there given that part of the attraction of the new generation pans is that they are lighter. But that felt 'wrong' in my hands. Perhaps that is just a case of misaligned expectations?

I have also done an about face on pan smoothness. I probably have a good claim to the (once) smoothest cast iron on KKF. Years ago I polished one of my cast iron skillets to a near mirror (just because I could). The smoother the better? Right? I got frustrated with how poorly the seasoning adhered to the surface. To resolve this, I roughed up the surface with low grit paper. Even then it took a _long_ time to accrue durable seasoning. It does seem like a textured surface helps the seasoning adhere! The best option might be a machined surface (so it is flat) followed by low grit sandblasting for texture.


I am on the edge of buy an Aus-Ion pan. I am semi-interested in a carbon steel pan but don't need one. Aus-Ion looks like a carbon / cast iron hybrid... somewhere in between with regards to thermal mass.


----------



## deskjockey

Thinner lighter cast iron has its place in the kitchen IMHO. I don't need a super heavy cast iron skillet for everything I do.

Expectation from the ~$15USD 12" Lodge skillets we get from Walmart and similar places has created an expectation of excessive weight. That excessive weight works wonderfully in an apartment with a weak oven and stovetop assuming you have ~30 minutes or more to preheat it. I have made some awesome steaks on a pathetic stovetop using this method and a bit of butter.

The vintage 'barn' find that is so trendy today are much lighter and much smoother. This lighter weight means they often get warped when people slap a cold skillet down on a burner turned up high or not loaded properly with high heat (i.e. single really cold chicken breast in a 12" skillet on high heat). The smoothness is nice IMHO but, it is a bit of technique thing.

Smooth finished or textured like the cheap Lodge cast iron both work IF you know how to use and maintain them IMHO.


----------



## tcmx3

there's a wide spectrum of good thermal masses and finishes. I dont think mirrored is on that, but that's me.

Stargazer and some of the other ones are more than massive enough IMO. But that's also me; I basically think of it like Lodge is just overkill in that respect and there's a lot of room to save weight and not drop under where you need to be to have an effective pan.

I will admit seasoning is not quite as durable on Stargazer as Lodge, but it's still WAY better than Carbon.

Again to my taste Stargazer gets all the details right: it's the right shape, the right weight/thickness, the right texture, the right handle, the right helper handle, and the right lip shape to facilitate pouring. Furthermore, in a world of Mauvial 2.5mm and Demeyere it's a much less expensive way to get a top tier pan.

Vintage cast iron is good but variable and nowadays everyone thinks their unbranded pan is worth as much as a Griswold. Might as well skip the headache and get a modern one IMO.

Stargazer is not the only good nor is it necessarily the best. I like it and I do think it's better than Lodge and I rate it highly myself and think it was well worth what I spent on it.


----------



## deskjockey

tcmx3 said:


> there's a wide spectrum of good thermal masses and finishes. I dont think mirrored is on that, but that's me.
> 
> Stargazer and some of the other ones are more than massive enough IMO. But that's also me; I basically think of it like Lodge is just overkill in that respect and there's a lot of room to save weight and not drop under where you need to be to have an effective pan.
> 
> I will admit seasoning is not quite as durable on Stargazer as Lodge, but it's still WAY better than Carbon.
> 
> Again to my taste Stargazer gets all the details right: it's the right shape, the right weight/thickness, the right texture, the right handle, the right helper handle, and the right lip shape to facilitate pouring. Furthermore, in a world of Mauvial 2.5mm and Demeyere it's a much less expensive way to get a top tier pan.
> 
> Vintage cast iron is good but variable and nowadays everyone thinks their unbranded pan is worth as much as a Griswold. Might as well skip the headache and get a modern one IMO.
> 
> Stargazer is not the only good nor is it necessarily the best. I like it and I do think it's better than Lodge and I rate it highly myself and think it was well worth what I spent on it.





An easy way for Lodge to cut the weight and keep the existing qualities would be to thin the sides of the pan similar to Stargazer. Personally, I find the grease spouts to be a bit worthless on the regular mass market Lodge skillets. The Chef's Skillet is a lot better in this regard. I also find the sloped sides a lot easier to work with though, I won't fry chicken in it use other high liquid methods due to "splashing" and this is where the older classic Lodge skillet is had an advantage.

If I were to start all over with Lodge, I would get a Lodge "deep" skillet for frying and similar things and the Chef's skillet for normal eggs, pancakes, burgers, etc.


----------



## Jville

deskjockey said:


> I don't have a thick copper skillet and my only tin lined pan is a ~2qt sauce pan. Most of mine is the 2.5mm thick stainless lined Mauviel line of Sauce Pans.
> 
> My tin lined copper sauce pan is at least 3mm thick and a joy to use. It is dead flat even from base to rim as best I can tell without scientific instruments.
> 
> I can't say the Lagostina ACCADEMIA LAGOFUSION is that even but, it is a different and larger pan. What I typically do is put it on an undersized burner and simmer stews. The simmer itself is consistent whether looking at the sides or center of the stew.
> 
> I say this coming from an uneven electric cooktop with poor temperature control.


When you cook onions or garlic, can you leave them in your high end stainless without stirring it or moving them around?


----------



## tcmx3

Jville said:


> When you cook onions or garlic, can you leave them in your high end stainless without stirring it or moving them around?



if you have the right stove and a proper pan then yes. 

I assume we're not talking about dry here, right? with even a bit of butter/oil it's fine. 

the 7 layer stuff is exceptionally even heating. you just have to know the right setting on the stove whereas with copper you can easily adjust.


----------



## deskjockey

Jville said:


> When you cook onions or garlic, can you leave them in your high end stainless without stirring it or moving them around?



Yes, recently I tested a Hestan Nanobond skillet with a full red onion on modest heat with a splash of oil and I saw no need for moving them around to even things out. After a few minutes they were evenly softened and ready for the next stage of the cooking process. The Demeyere Proline skillets are similar. I suspect most of the better stainless skillets MADE IN EUROPE would pass this test fairly easily. There is a French brand or series called Cristal I have heard about that sounds interesting and I hope to give one a 'test drive' some day.

In terms of garlic, I don't typically fry or perfume oils with it so, that is still an open unanswered question for me. However, I would be surprised if the results were significantly different though I think garlic is probably a bit more heat sensitive with its lower moisture content.


----------



## deskjockey

tcmx3 said:


> if you have the right stove and a proper pan then yes.
> 
> I assume we're not talking about dry here, right? with even a bit of butter/oil it's fine.
> 
> the 7 layer stuff is exceptionally even heating. you just have to know the right setting on the stove whereas with copper you can easily adjust.



Good points! If you overheat stainless, it isn't very responsive to cooling quickly so, if you let things get out of hand it can end in disaster.

My current cooktop really sucks so, if I DON'T have good quality pans, my meals are generally terrible unless I hover over them while on the stove. COVID totally go me with my kitchen renovation as costs skyrocketed and the few people around me went to the big cities for big bucks. I'm hoping by January things will have cooled down and I move forward with the renovation. My oven totally died and a new one can't be retrofitted easily. With the cooktop, I have considered just ripping it out myself and going to Lowes/Home Depot for a new one to hack into the counter until a more permanent solution can be found.

Instead I have "splurged" a little on some imported cookware from Europe which is dealing with the end-of-life cooktop I have right now.


----------



## Jville

tcmx3 said:


> if you have the right stove and a proper pan then yes.
> 
> I assume we're not talking about dry here, right? with even a bit of butter/oil it's fine.
> 
> the 7 layer stuff is exceptionally even heating. you just have to know the right setting on the stove whereas with copper you can easily adjust.


The thing about copper tin lined pans, it doesn’t matter if the stove is good or not. They are still going to perform the same way, exceptionally… Yeah, definitely not dry.


----------



## deskjockey

If someone spots a good deal on a thick copper skillet, please let me know! Of course this assumes you aren't buying it.


----------



## Luftmensch

deskjockey said:


> Smooth finished or textured like the cheap Lodge cast iron both work IF you know how to use and maintain them IMHO.



Oh! For sure... I am just observing that in my experience, seasoning tends to be more tenacious when there is _some_ texture to adhere to. 




tcmx3 said:


> there's a wide spectrum of good thermal masses and finishes. I dont think mirrored is on that, but that's me.



Mirrored not on the spectrum?? Sure it is... it is on the pointless/stupid side of the spectrum  

I remember my goal was something like smoothing the pan down to 240 or 400... this was based on the smoother is better nonsense. A lot of the heavy work can be done with power tools (flap discs etc) - so it doesn't have to be a big job. By the time I got to that grit I thought "what the hell" and went up to 1200 followed by a buffing wheel. It was a nice summer day and beer was involved. The iron was so reactive it wanted to oxidise so the 'mirror' would tarnish really quickly. 




deskjockey said:


> An easy way for Lodge to cut the weight and keep the existing qualities would be to thin the sides of the pan similar to Stargazer.



This is close to what Blacklock pans are.... I think people were generally annoyed they didnt go the whole hog and smooth out the cooking surfaces. 



I am still tempted by the new-fangled thing... when I do venture into those pastures it will be an Äüs-ïöñ ( @juice, proper spelling)... maybe i'll grab an usudeba on the way out ...


----------



## juice

Luftmensch said:


> Äüs-ïöñ ( @juice, proper spelling)


They're not red  

People are throwing money at them, and I'll guarantee 90+ per cent of them have no idea it's a single-bevel knife


----------



## deskjockey

What's the story with SolidTeknics AUS-ION? Is it just relatively thin and polished Australian cast iron? Is it something more? What am I missing?


----------



## Jville

Luftmensch said:


> @daizee, can you expand on that?
> 
> I went through a long period of coveting the newer, sexier cast iron. To an extent, i still do. There is no doubt; they have more precise and refined manufacturing.
> 
> In Australia there isn't as a huge vintage market. Similarly, boutique cast iron does not have much of a presence either... and the shipping would be astronomical! I was excited when Lodge released their Blacklock line - not necessarily because they were 'better' than any of the other new generation cast iron (they are 'worse'). I was excited because Lodge have a big enough distribution network that it was inevitable Blacklock would be sold in Australia... and it now is.
> 
> I eventually handled a Blacklock skillet in a store and was underwhelmed. It was a bit deflating! I know simply inspecting one is a far cry from cooking with it.... But the pan just felt insubstantial compared to the regular lodge offering. Certainly not what I have come to associate with cast iron - a thermal freight train. There is a strange irony there given that part of the attraction of the new generation pans is that they are lighter. But that felt 'wrong' in my hands. Perhaps that is just a case of misaligned expectations?
> 
> I have also done an about face on pan smoothness. I probably have a good claim to the (once) smoothest cast iron on KKF. Years ago I polished one of my cast iron skillets to a near mirror (just because I could). The smoother the better? Right? I got frustrated with how poorly the seasoning adhered to the surface. To resolve this, I roughed up the surface with low grit paper. Even then it took a _long_ time to accrue durable seasoning. It does seem like a textured surface helps the seasoning adhere! The best option might be a machined surface (so it is flat) followed by low grit sandblasting for texture.
> 
> 
> I am on the edge of buy an Aus-Ion pan. I am semi-interested in a carbon steel pan but don't need one. Aus-Ion looks like a carbon / cast iron hybrid... somewhere in between with regards to thermal mass.


What you did was probably way excessive and sounds like it didn’t work. What they did back in the day with those vintage cast iron was smooth and it holds seasoning just as well and are better IMO. Unless, you are doing sone crazy stuff with them they should hold up just fine and the smoothness is more nonstick. I like mine way better than newer clunkier rough ones.


----------



## Nemo

deskjockey said:


> What's the story with SolidTeknics AUS-ION? Is it just relatively thin and polished Australian cast iron? Is it something more? What am I missing?


It's wrought iron rather than cast iron.


----------



## deskjockey

Nemo said:


> It's wrought iron rather than cast iron.



Thanks for the clarification! That is an interesting choice for those pans.


----------



## Nemo

deskjockey said:


> Thanks for the clarification! That is an interesting choice for those pans.


It's much lighter than cast. It seasons very vell. Finer grained than most cast iron I have seen. I prefer it to steel for searing meat. I get the impression that it is a little more forgiving than steel as regards needing to hit the sweet spot for temperature before putting the food in it. I assume this has something to do with it's thermodynamic properties. Not sure if this is because it retains more heat or transfers it more readily than steel does.


----------



## Michi

Wrought iron has slightly higher (~9%) heat capacity than cast iron. Conductivity of wrought iron is slightly better as well.


----------



## Luftmensch

deskjockey said:


> What's the story with SolidTeknics AUS-ION?



Correct spelling... please!! 



Nemo said:


> wrought iron





Michi said:


> Wrought iron



This is where marketing meets engineering.

It depends on what you mean by 'wrought'.... Wrought iron _typically_ refers to dirty bloomery iron - it contains a lot of sh!t that was trapped in the slag. Most but not all of the slag is worked ('wrought') out of the melt. That is why wrought iron has a beautiful, wood-like grain. I don't think modern industry uses wrought iron for anything these days - just arty/crafty things (I could be wrong on this point).

Our steel manufacturing is far more controlled and clean these days. Clean 'wrought iron' is really just low-carbon steel... And if you sift through enough of the Äüs-ïöñ marketing material, they refer to the pans (parenthetically) as 'formed low-carbon steel'. Back to 'wrought' and 'formed'.... 'wrought' can also mean 'bent'... or 'formed' if you will!

So Äüs-ïöñ are 'formed' out of low-carbon steel - I'd love to see this. They must have a great big hydraulic ram punching low-carbon sheets into a die? I am sure the same is true for Ñöñï (except with stainless steel sheets).



Luftmensch said:


> Aus-Ion looks like a carbon / cast iron hybrid...



They are thick low-carbon steel pans!


----------



## deskjockey

Luftmensch said:


> Correct spelling... please!!



AUS-ION™ RAW, SATIN & Quenched™ Explained


----------



## Luftmensch

deskjockey said:


> AUS-ION™ RAW, SATIN & Quenched™ Explained





In one of their early kickstarter campaigns, they did not raise enough money to fully fund their umlaut budget. As a result they had to make deep cuts when launching their marketing material. I am just restoring them to their full glory!

(ok... ok... I am being mean... but seriously why all the umlauts? As @juice well knows, I think they have gone "rouge" ☭)


----------



## Nemo

Luftmensch said:


> So Äüs-ïöñ are 'formed' out of low-carbon steel - I'd love to see this.
> 
> They are thick low-carbon steel pans!



interesting.


Makes me wonder whether the perceived difference to my DeBuyer is real or perceived. I guess it could have something to do with the shape, thickness or finish. Or it could be all in my head...


----------



## juice

Nemo said:


> Makes me wonder whether the perceived difference to my DeBuyer is real or perceived. I guess it could have something to do with the shape, thickness or finish. Or it could be all in my head...


Could be, I guess, but I sold my DeBuyer once I got the Solidteknics.


----------



## Chips

I need another pan like I need a swift kick in the head. ButI just now saw this advertisement from one of my favorite ceramics makers here in California, Heath Ceramics, who often pairs with other high end makers to offer cool kitchen stuff.

Anyway, the price isn't too bad and it appears to be a well made high wall 8" sauté pan. I like the handle and the height. Im almost tempted to pick one up. I just might if I can avoid shipping costs.










Saute Pan No 20


High quality, beautiful design, intended for everyday use — and built to last. Darto's pans are made of 100% laminated iron, creating a sturdy seamless design with no welds or rivets. Oven safe and works on all stovetops, including induction. To prevent rust during shipping each pan is coated in...




www.heathceramics.com


----------



## deskjockey

Nemo said:


> interesting.
> 
> 
> Makes me wonder whether the perceived difference to my DeBuyer is real or perceived. I guess it could have something to do with the shape, thickness or finish. Or it could be all in my head...





juice said:


> Could be, I guess, but I sold my DeBuyer once I got the Solidteknics.



I would tend to think it is in the "all in my head" subjective territory personally. The main difference appears to be thickness and weight of the pans in question.


----------



## deskjockey

Chips said:


> I need another pan like I need a swift kick in the head. ButI just now saw this advertisement from one of my favorite ceramics makers here in California, Heath Ceramics, who often pairs with other high end makers to offer cool kitchen stuff.
> 
> Anyway, the price isn't too bad and it appears to be a well made high wall 8" sauté pan. I like the handle and the height. Im almost tempted to pick one up. I just might if I can avoid shipping costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saute Pan No 20
> 
> 
> High quality, beautiful design, intended for everyday use — and built to last. Darto's pans are made of 100% laminated iron, creating a sturdy seamless design with no welds or rivets. Oven safe and works on all stovetops, including induction. To prevent rust during shipping each pan is coated in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.heathceramics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 135697



Home | Darto International 




I have two of these pans and like them a lot. The are made from a single piece of steel so, NO RIVETS! 

The little n.15 is one I use a lot. I don't know where the DeBuyer equivalent that was in my kitchen went ...


----------



## juice

deskjockey said:


> I would tend to think it is in the "all in my head" subjective territory personally. The main difference appears to be thickness and weight of the pans in question.


And that's the danger of opining on stuff that you haven't used. If nothing else, the usability of the Solidteknics was well ahead of the DeBuyer.


----------



## btbyrd

I have a full set of the original Darto pans and like them a lot. They changed the design by making the edges less flared and also changed their seasoning process, so I have no experience with the current lineup. But I've ordered from them a bunch direct from Argentina, and have always been happy with their pans. My favorite is their larger paella; I have a No. 34, but the current offering is a No. 35. It sees a lot of action, from frying chicken, to roasting veg, to searing steaks, to serving nachos. I'll buy several of their smaller ones when I eventually buy a nice countertop oven. 

Since people mentioned wanting to see the Aus-ION manufacturing process, I'll submit the OG Darto press where all my pans were formed:


----------



## deskjockey

juice said:


> And that's the danger of opining on stuff that you haven't used. If nothing else, the usability of the Solidteknics was well ahead of the DeBuyer.


I guess this really depends on what you mean by "opining".

Analysis of similarities and differences is all we have we have in addition to personal reviews of owners before we buy products we can't see or touch in person. If someone has broad experience with a lot of different, but not the same, pans I think it is valid to point out observations and what those probably mean in a new pan. It's when someone is _spouting off with no real knowledge_ that we get into "opining territory" generally IMHO.

My DeBuyer "mineral" pans are certainly smooth and heavy, my standard Lodge is heavy and rough (or textured), and my Lodge Chef's pans and Blacklock are lighter weight and smoother though not as smooth as DeBuyer. I also have thinner DeBuyer pans than the Mineral series to compare too.

Wrought iron vs. Cast iron vs. stamped steel differences can also be compared in a similar way.

Whether someone wants to spend the 'coin' to 'test drive' an Australian pan to prove or disprove any of these points is fine if they want to. Personally, if I have a $100 or more to spend on another skillet, I'm probably going to Europe not Australia because I like those pans and the risk is very low of getting something I won't like. In reality, I bought a Stargazer skillet instead!  

Aus-Ion is probably a good pan for my uses and perhaps if they weren't so expensive when I went with the EU options originally, I would be a Solidteknics fan but, I think there is also a bit of 'snake oil' and 'huksterism' in all of this for marketing sake (and I mean this in the general sense for the entire cookware industry, not just the pans in question).. Do Japanese knives have some magical or mystical properties due to the iron sands from Japan or is it really all about the skill of the bladesmith, and a similarly performing knife or sword from Europe or North America would perform the same way if the same skill in construction was used?


----------



## juice

deskjockey said:


> Whether someone wants to spend the 'coin' to 'test drive' an Australian pan


Oh no, I'm not suggesting that, the prices (as I keep saying) are nutso unless you can get a good discount


----------



## deskjockey

juice said:


> Oh no, I'm not suggesting that, the prices (as I keep saying) are nutso unless you can get a good discount



It looks like they have a 7.5" skillet for $49USD in the USA so, that's almost a "try me" price. At $61 with shipping not inclusive of Tax though, it is still a bit spendy. However, a "Black Friday" or "Thanksgiving" sale could certainly sway me to give one a whirl.

Seasoned 7.5" Wrought Iron Lightning Skillet — SOLIDteknics USA


----------



## juice

Ah yeah, that's the new "discount" version, I'd forgotten they exist. Plus just paying US labour rates, not Aussie helps too.


----------



## JayGee

I was interested in Aus Ion until I found out the founder was the guy who made Füri knives.


----------



## Nemo

JayGee said:


> I was interested in Aus Ion until I found out the founder was the guy who made Füri knives.


Yeah, this made me very sceptical too but @juice talked me in to trying one. I'm glad he did. It's my favourite skillet.


----------



## Helicon

Some of the suggestions offered here are admittedly a little perplexing. For example, I'd never consider carbon steel or cast iron frying pans to be "high end". They may be very expensive, however. 

The OP has an electric cooktop, which basically limits how responsive his cookware will be without moving it on/off the cooktop. Yes, he could splurge on a copper skillet, but they tend to be heavier and their performance may not be worth the premium. I wouldn't recommend a tin-lined skillet, anyway, since they tend to be used at higher temperatures and tin isn't as durable as stainless steel. 

If he's just looking for an upgrade from All-Clad, I'd be inclined to recommend Demeyere Industry5 or Proline. They both have much more conductive material than All-Clad, plus more comfortable handles, etc. If he doesn't care about conductive sidewalls, then he should look at thick aluminum disc pans from Sitram or Paderno (aka Vollrath Centurion), Fissler etc. Some of the Paderno models have about 6-7 mm of aluminum in their bases, which means they're more even-heating than copper and have more heat retention, too. Those are the attributes that truly matter in a skillet. 

The dark horse here would be a bare aluminum skillet from Agnelli, Ballarini, or Eagleware. Something like 5 mm thick, but much lighter than the copper and stainless/aluminum pans (not to mention carbon steel or cast iron) mentioned previously. It would have great evenness, heat retention, and even decent responsiveness. Not to mention being far less expensive.


----------



## Michi

Nemo said:


> Yeah, this made me very sceptical too but @juice talked me in to trying one. I'm glad he did. It's my favourite skillet.


Man, at AUD 300.00 for a 12" skillet, it had better be!

But then, I have a knife that cost north of AUD 1000.00, so who am I to complain


----------



## juice

Nemo said:


> Yeah, this made me very sceptical too but @juice talked me in to trying one. I'm glad he did. It's my favourite skillet.


Yeah, the pans are as good as the knives are bad


----------



## Nemo

Michi said:


> Man, at AUD 300.00 for a 12" skillet, it had better be!


I don't think I spent that much.


----------



## Michi

Nemo said:


> I don't think I spent that much.


I had a quick look at their website. Most likely, there are times when there are special offers and the like.

Still, even with a hefty discount, that ain't no cheap pan…


----------



## btbyrd

They're overpriced for stamped and pressed iron cookware. Nice though.


----------



## deskjockey

Good points.



Helicon said:


> Some of the suggestions offered here are admittedly a little perplexing. For example, I'd never consider carbon steel or cast iron frying pans to be "high end". They may be very expensive, however.



Expensive and "High End" can be very different. Think about the $5 or $10 entre you get at some hole in the wall place that is executed with near perfection and tastes awesome.

Comparing a ~$20 Lodge from WalMart to a ~$150 or more Stargazer, Field, Butter Pat, etc. is what I think of as "High End" in relative terms.



Helicon said:


> The OP has an electric cooktop, which basically limits how responsive his cookware will be without moving it on/off the cooktop. Yes, he could splurge on a copper skillet, but they tend to be heavier and their performance may not be worth the premium. I wouldn't recommend a tin-lined skillet, anyway, since they tend to be used at higher temperatures and tin isn't as durable as stainless steel.



An electric cooktop opens up a wide range of things to consider. Does it heat evenly (hot on one side cooler on the other)? Does it cycle off and on? etc. Copper will give you an even heat across the skillet. So will cast iron.  



Helicon said:


> If he's just looking for an upgrade from All-Clad, I'd be inclined to recommend Demeyere Industry5 or Proline. They both have much more conductive material than All-Clad, plus more comfortable handles, etc. If he doesn't care about conductive sidewalls, then he should look at thick aluminum disc pans from Sitram or Paderno (aka Vollrath Centurion), Fissler etc. Some of the Paderno models have about 6-7 mm of aluminum in their bases, which means they're more even-heating than copper and have more heat retention, too. Those are the attributes that truly matter in a skillet.



Paderno models have about 6-7 mm of aluminum in their bases - which ones are you referring to?



Helicon said:


> The dark horse here would be a bare aluminum skillet from Agnelli, Ballarini, or Eagleware. Something like 5 mm thick, but much lighter than the copper and stainless/aluminum pans (not to mention carbon steel or cast iron) mentioned previously. It would have great evenness, heat retention, and even decent responsiveness. Not to mention being far less expensive.



How does raw aluminum work if you stay away from really acidic things (lemon, etc.) with tomatoes, onions and similar ingredients you might put in an omelet or cook with in general?


----------



## deskjockey

btbyrd said:


> They're overpriced for stamped and pressed iron cookware. Nice though.



That was my initial reaction when I originally looked at them way back then!


----------



## Helicon

deskjockey said:


> An electric cooktop opens up a wide range of things to consider. Does it heat evenly (hot on one side cooler on the other)? Does it cycle off and on? etc. Copper will give you an even heat across the skillet. So will cast iron


For sure, which is why it doesn't probably make sense to splurge on either expensive cast iron or carbon steel. You can get decent performance in the cast iron realm by just buying Lodge. A more expensive cast iron pan does not guarantee any performance improvements whatsoever, which is why "high end" is a bit of a contradiction in terms. It's just expensive, period.



deskjockey said:


> Paderno models have about 6-7 mm of aluminum in their bases - which ones are you referring to?


The Paderno Grand Gourmet line of cookware, sometimes sold in the U.S. as Vollrath Centurion. The 1100 series is the one to look for. Pieces 28 cm and greater in diameter have ≥6.5 mm of aluminum in their bases. Full listing here: Serie 1100 | Paderno EU



deskjockey said:


> How does raw aluminum work if you stay away from really acidic things (lemon, etc.) with tomatoes, onions and similar ingredients you might put in an omelet or cook with in general?


Acidic food is not a problem with aluminum cookware, unless you're storing highly acidic food in the pan overnight or for days. Indian & Italian restaurants around the world cook acidic curries and sauces in bare aluminum pots and pans every day with no adverse effect on flavors or human health. The issue is with highly alkaline foods like rhubarb, actually.


----------



## tcmx3

uh I think you have be looking at things pretty narrowly to suggest that a lighter weight, better handles (and the Stargazer ones are MUCH better), pouring lips that actually work, a surface that is a fair bit slicker, etc. do not fall under performance improvements.

if your principle metric is to pull out your surface temp thermometer then just go ahead and get a 7 layer Demeyere. I mean I'd recommend that anyway if folks can afford it but still.


----------



## Helicon

tcmx3 said:


> uh I think you have be looking at things pretty narrowly to suggest that a lighter weight, better handles (and the Stargazer ones are MUCH better), pouring lips that actually work, a surface that is a fair bit slicker, etc. do not fall under performance improvements.
> 
> if your principle metric is to pull out your surface temp thermometer then just go ahead and get a 7 layer Demeyere. I mean I'd recommend that anyway if folks can afford it but still.


Not really. Lighter weight generally means thinner, which means less even-heating and less heat capacity. Also more fragile. Cast iron is nothing if not brittle, and can crack/shatter if dropped. Lodge pans get perfectly slick and smooth if they're seasoned properly. Fine, the handles suck, but just get a silicone sleeve and you'll be good to go. I wouldn't consider handles a performance improvement in any case.


----------



## tcmx3

Helicon said:


> Not really. Lighter weight generally means thinner, which means less even-heating and less heat capacity. Also more fragile. Cast iron is nothing if not brittle, and can crack/shatter if dropped. Lodge pans get perfectly slick and smooth if they're seasoned properly. Fine, the handles suck, but just get a silicone sleeve and you'll be good to go. I wouldn't consider handles a performance improvement in any case.



everything is a trade off.

while what you're saying is true in the abstract, in practice the Stargazer's practical choices are far, far better than Lodge's and it results in a considerably more useable pan. there's also no question they're made better.

I dont think there is a single metric that Lodge beats Stargazer on other than concerns of price/availability. Whereas the list of things Stargazer does better is pretty long. If it's worth it or not is one question, that it's a superior pan in meaningful ways really isnt IMO


----------



## Helicon

tcmx3 said:


> everything is a trade off.
> 
> while what you're saying is true in the abstract, in practice the Stargazer's practical choices are far, far better than Lodge's and it results in a considerably more useable pan. there's also no question they're made better.
> 
> I dont think there is a single metric that Lodge beats Stargazer on other than concerns of price/availability. Whereas the list of things Stargazer does better is pretty long. If it's worth it or not is one question, that it's a superior pan in meaningful ways really isnt IMO


What I wrote is true in reality, not just the abstract. The performance attributes I value in a skillet are: evenness and heat retention/capacity. A thinner/lighter cast iron skillet will have less of both. People can quibble all day about whether a skillet needs to be responsive, but with cast iron that's not really possible anyway.

How are the Stargazer pans "made better" than Lodge? They're all cast iron, i.e., molted iron poured into a mold and allowed to cool. They're made the same way.

The "advantages" you ascribe to the Stargazer, for example, are not really performance advantages as such. Maybe they're better described as comfort & convenience related, but they won't cook the food any better. And in fact the Stargazer probably won't do as good a job as a $15 Lodge.


----------



## tcmx3

Helicon said:


> And in fact the Stargazer probably won't do as good a job as a $15 Lodge.



I mean sure believe whatever you want.

I have both, and a bunch of other high end pans.

But Im sure you know better.


----------



## Helicon

tcmx3 said:


> I mean sure believe whatever you want.
> 
> I have both, and a bunch of other high end pans.
> 
> But Im sure you know better.



There's honestly no compelling *performance* reason to splurge on expensive cast iron or carbon steel cookware. The raw materials are absurdly cheap, the construction is pretty basic, and the labor required is far less. If you want to splurge on cookware, go crazy, but this is not the place to do it. Especially when the more expensive models are thinner/lighter in general.

I own and use lots of high-end cookware and have never found über expensive cast iron cookware to work any better at anything. This is not the case for most cookware, to be clear. If you pay more for thicker copper, for example, you get better performance. The same is true of SS clad aluminum, thick SS aluminum disc, bare aluminum, etc. Even the really nice nonstick stuff from Woll is far better than most other nonstick cookware.


----------



## tcmx3

performance performance performance.

do you know any other words?

if you want more "performance" get a better stove. the thermal mass of high end cast iron is very similar to vintage stuff and there's a reason those were the dominant patterns for so long. as I said before you have to have a pretty limited view to wave away a lot of things that will be noticeable on a day to day basis, like looking at the word through a pinhole.

also "I care about this" and then proceeds to list first a thing that cast iron will always be dog**** at. sounds like you dont have a use for it so why are you so keen to opine about pans you dont own?


----------



## Helicon

tcmx3 said:


> the thermal mass of high end cast iron is very similar to vintage stuff and there's a reason those were the dominant patterns for so long.


Are you purporting to know the reasons those were the dominant patterns then? Please enlighten me. FWIW my understanding is that thinner/lighter pans were simply preferred by the consumer because they were easier to maneuver, and by the manufacturers because they required less raw materials, so lower cost to produce. Nothing about actual cooking performance, mind you.

If I'm not buying cookware for performance, what am I buying it for? Style? Bragging rights? Seriously, figure out your priorities and come back when you have some idea where it makes sense to spend $$.


----------



## rickbern

deskjockey said:


> Good points.
> 
> 
> 
> Expensive and "High End" can be very different. Think about the $5 or $10 entre you get at some hole in the wall place that is executed with near perfection and tastes awesome.
> 
> Comparing a ~$20 Lodge from WalMart to a ~$150 or more Stargazer, Field, Butter Pat, etc. is what I think of as "High End" in relative terms.
> 
> 
> 
> An electric cooktop opens up a wide range of things to consider. Does it heat evenly (hot on one side cooler on the other)? Does it cycle off and on? etc. Copper will give you an even heat across the skillet. So will cast iron.
> 
> 
> 
> Paderno models have about 6-7 mm of aluminum in their bases - which ones are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> How does raw aluminum work if you stay away from really acidic things (lemon, etc.) with tomatoes, onions and similar ingredients you might put in an omelet or cook with in general?


Big plus one on this!

In pretty similar sizes, I have a Matfer Bouregart Carbon Steel Skillet, a Mauviel copper/stainless lined sauté pan and a Demeyere proline skillet. I wouldn't choose to be without any of them, the Demeyere probably gets used the least. That heavy sauté pan that holds the liquids in place and changes temperature instantly is great (made a big batch of Cabbage Thoran in it last night) and the overall performance of the carbon steel pan screams high end in my language, don't care that it cost about 20% of the pro-line. The pro-line is nice to have, I tend to value it more in a 24 cm diameter rather than the 28 cm which is what I'm comparing here. When I really want a skillet and there's acid involved, it's a great, balanced performer that's good at everything and kind of excels at nothing.


----------



## tcmx3

Helicon said:


> Are you purporting to know the reasons those were the dominant patterns then? Please enlighten me. FWIW my understanding is that thinner/lighter pans were simply preferred by the consumer because they were easier to maneuver, and by the manufacturers because they required less raw materials, so lower cost to produce. Nothing about actual cooking performance, mind you.
> 
> If I'm not buying cookware for performance, what am I buying it for? Style? Bragging rights? Seriously, figure out your priorities and come back when you have some idea where it makes sense to spend $$.



it's not surprising that you miss the point.

you have too narrow a view of what performance is. you keep hammering on that word because you want that to be the full extent of it but it simply isnt.

the irony here is you are SO convinced that you are focused only on performance but you refuse to look at the bigger picture of why these pans work better. including the fact that you refuse to accept that practically the thermal mass of a vintage pan is already more than is necessary, so you keep saying "yes but nominally this pan is worse at this" but so what? and? frankly your ability to ignore any context here is pretty impressive.

things that are better about a high end cast iron pan that matter when you cook food: handles, surface, weight (as you may be tilting, lifting, moving frequently)

anyway time to add you to the old ignore list because you clearly want to drag the whole thread to  town


----------



## Helicon

tcmx3 said:


> including the fact that you refuse to accept that practically the thermal mass of a vintage pan is already more than is necessary



More than is necessary for what? For cornbread, sure. For searing a huge steak or two while having enough retained heat for browning equally well after the flip, probably not. Much depends on the cooktop's ability to recharge the pan, but cast iron doesn't recharge nearly as quickly as other materials we've discussed, such as copper or aluminum. So you're better off having a thicker, heavier cast iron pan to start with.



tcmx3 said:


> yes but nominally this pan is worse at this



It's not nominal. It's actual, measurable, quantifiable performance. Here's an experiment you can perform for yourself if you like. Put a pan in a preheated oven for 30 minutes at 350°F. Take the pan out, add a liter (or a quart) of cold water straight from the tap to the hot pan. Wait two minutes, give the water a stir, and measure the temperature. Then do the same with your other pan. See which one ends up with hotter water.

What's hilarious about this conversation is that you seem fixated on cast iron, when my original suggestion to the OP was that he reject cast iron and carbon steel as "high end" options. Cast iron just doesn't have the thermal performance to compete with copper or aluminum in most cooking tasks. It's also heavier and more fragile. It does excel at a very limited number of things, though, including searing and browning while being somewhat nonstick.


----------



## rickbern

Helicon said:


> More than is necessary for what? For cornbread, sure. For searing a huge steak or two while having enough retained heat for browning equally well after the flip, probably not. Much depends on the cooktop's ability to recharge the pan, but cast iron doesn't recharge nearly as quickly as other materials we've discussed, such as copper or aluminum. So you're better off having a thicker, heavier cast iron pan to start with.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not nominal. It's actual, measurable, quantifiable performance. Here's an experiment you can perform for yourself if you like. Put a pan in a preheated oven for 30 minutes at 350°F. Take the pan out, add a liter (or a quart) of cold water straight from the tap to the hot pan. Wait two minutes, give the water a stir, and measure the temperature. Then do the same with your other pan. See which one ends up with hotter water.
> 
> What's hilarious about this conversation is that you seem fixated on cast iron, when my original suggestion to the OP was that he reject cast iron and carbon steel as "high end" options. Cast iron just doesn't have the thermal performance to compete with copper or aluminum in most cooking tasks. It's also heavier and more fragile. It does excel at a very limited number of things, though, including searing and browning while being somewhat nonstick.


Why not get one of each? As I noted, I make good use of different pans for different use cases. Maybe I’m unusual, but I don’t want the empirically best pan, I just want the one that works best for me. 

I forgot to mention because it seemed too specialized but I also have a terra cotta cazuuela that cost $14 in that size. Sometimes that’s the best pan, but it’s not competing in your cold water test. It would crack from the thermal shock.


----------



## rickbern

In reality, any 240 gyuto will do about as well as any other in your drawer. Switching from one gyuto to a different one will rarely open up new possibilities in your cooking. 

That is emphatically not true with pans. Changes in material and configuration will potentially yield drastically different results or make new cuisines available to you. You ever try to stir fry in a copper or multi clad pan? Doesn’t sound like an optimal solution. 

There may be people in the world who buy one set of pans and cook everything in it, but those people are probably not reading this thread. I admit to being a little obsessive with this, I have five gyutos, but I’m sure I have 30 pots and pans in a small apartment kitchen. Clad, carbon, iron, copper, terra cotta, disk bottomed stainless. They all are the stars of their own little shows


----------



## Helicon

rickbern said:


> Why not get one of each? As I noted, I make good use of different pans for different use cases. Maybe I’m unusual, but I don’t want the empirically best pan, I just want the one that works best for me.
> 
> I forgot to mention because it seemed too specialized but I also have a terra cotta cazuuela that cost $14 in that size. Sometimes that’s the best pan, but it’s not competing in your cold water test. It would crack from the thermal shock.


Sure, there's no harm in getting one of each. I wasn't saying to avoid cast iron altogether, but I also don't consider cast iron to be high-end cookware. It's decidedly humble cookware that does a few things very well. There's absolutely no point in splurging on a $150 cast iron skillet, though. That's nutso.


----------



## tcmx3

hey guys Im right because I can define an incredibly narrow set of criteria that are not actually related to anything you might do in real life.

frankly though Im glad there are folks in this thread who are keen to talk about pans theyve actually owned.


----------



## Helicon

tcmx3 said:


> hey guys Im right because I can define an incredibly narrow set of criteria that are not actually related to anything you might do in real life.



Yes, that seems to be your forte.


----------



## BillHanna

馬車馬


----------



## rickbern

BillHanna said:


> 馬車馬


Google translate was a hard fail. It said carriage horse


----------



## BillHanna

rickbern said:


> Google translate was a hard fail. It said carriage horse


A meme from other threads. “Horse carriage horse” a stand in for beating a dead horse.


----------



## spaceconvoy

things are _heating up_ in the pandom


----------



## sansho

tcmx3 said:


> if you want more "performance" get a better stove.



haha. that same thought occurred to me at several points while reading this thread.
having good cookware is important, but if you don't have a good stove (high end induction or open burner gas), that is also a major limiting factor.


----------



## rickbern

sansho said:


> haha. that same thought occurred to me at several points while reading this thread.
> having good cookware is important, but if you don't have a good stove (high end induction or open burner gas), that is also a major limiting factor.


I'm hoping I'm not a horse carriage horse here...

I had a dirt cheap low end coil burner electric stove for 15 years in a loft in soho and cooked some pretty big, ambitious meals there.

Here's the kitchen





Batterie de Cuisine


Thought for some bizarre reason it would be fun to pull everything out of the cabinets and take pictures by categories. I'm a home cook, but I pretty regularly have dinners for anywhere from 20-40 people, and I do all the cooking; that's why some of these pieces are so large. Here you go...




www.kitchenknifeforums.com





Here's an (atypical) meal





Batterie de Cuisine


Thought for some bizarre reason it would be fun to pull everything out of the cabinets and take pictures by categories. I'm a home cook, but I pretty regularly have dinners for anywhere from 20-40 people, and I do all the cooking; that's why some of these pieces are so large. Here you go...




www.kitchenknifeforums.com





Hands down, the best pan I found for that limited stove was a disk bottom stainless pan. If I were still using that, I'd run, not walk, to the nearest Fissler store and just buy those pans, which I happen to think are great pans. I have them now on a better than average gas stove and they perform great on that hob as well.


----------



## Helicon

rickbern said:


> I'm hoping I'm not a horse carriage horse here...
> 
> I had a dirt cheap low end coil burner electric stove for 15 years in a loft in soho and cooked some pretty big, ambitious meals there.
> 
> Here's the kitchen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batterie de Cuisine
> 
> 
> Thought for some bizarre reason it would be fun to pull everything out of the cabinets and take pictures by categories. I'm a home cook, but I pretty regularly have dinners for anywhere from 20-40 people, and I do all the cooking; that's why some of these pieces are so large. Here you go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kitchenknifeforums.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an (atypical) meal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batterie de Cuisine
> 
> 
> Thought for some bizarre reason it would be fun to pull everything out of the cabinets and take pictures by categories. I'm a home cook, but I pretty regularly have dinners for anywhere from 20-40 people, and I do all the cooking; that's why some of these pieces are so large. Here you go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kitchenknifeforums.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hands down, the best pan I found for that limited stove was a disk bottom stainless pan. If I were still using that, I'd run, not walk, to the nearest Fissler store and just buy those pans, which I happen to think are great pans. I have them now on a better than average gas stove and they perform great on that hob as well.



Absolutely. Great cookware like Fissler Profi can compensate for a poor cooktop or an uneven one. But sometimes even a great cooktop cannot perform well with certain types of cookware. I posted this link in the other thread about skillets for induction cooktops, but it seems relevant to this discussion, as well: Heavy Metal: the Science of Cast Iron Cooking – Cooking Issues


----------



## rickbern

Helicon said:


> Absolutely. Great cookware like Fissler Profi can compensate for a poor cooktop or an uneven one. But sometimes even a great cooktop cannot perform well with certain types of cookware. I posted this link in the other thread about skillets for induction cooktops, but it seems relevant to this discussion, as well: Heavy Metal: the Science of Cast Iron Cooking – Cooking Issues


Yeah, I didn't bother to own a wok in that kitchen. Was one of the best things about the new apartment, getting a wok.


----------



## Jovidah

sansho said:


> haha. that same thought occurred to me at several points while reading this thread.
> having good cookware is important, but if you don't have a good stove (high end induction or open burner gas), that is also a major limiting factor.


IMO it goes even further; on a crap stove you NEED good pans... on a good stove you can get away with using far lesser pans.

Those electric coil burners are a crime against humanity. Had to suffer those for a few years as well and it was the nr 1 reason for me to want to move out of that appartment.


----------



## rickbern

@BillHanna , dug one out of the dirt. 

Civility is a carriage ride around Central Park!


----------



## daizee

Luftmensch said:


> @daizee, can you expand on that?
> 
> I went through a long period of coveting the newer, sexier cast iron. To an extent, i still do. There is no doubt; they have more precise and refined manufacturing.



Indeed!
I find the Lodge stuff absurdly heavy per unit of cooking area. I don't need the physical mass of an engine block in a pan, and I generally find all that thermal mass aggravating as well.

Cast iron pans in general are heavier than their steel (and other) counterparts, so it's not like the Stargazer or vintage Griswold are "thin" or "light" - that's only in comparison to the unfinished Lodge products.

Cheap cast iron is cast.... and shipped. It's simply unfinished, IMO. Vintage stuff was cast with enough extra mass to tolerate being ground smooth, after which it was a reasonable mass. Stargazer duplicates this engineering process. Cast, grind, season, ship.

Lodge and Wagner patterns pulled off of old Griswold molds are SHAPED similar to their parent patterns, but the more expensive labor of finishing the product simply isn't done. The result is a pebbly finish that can never be scraped clean. You don't need a gravel driveway in the bottom of your pan to hold seasoning. That said, a mirror finish is probably the other extreme to be avoided as well.

Steel pans are usually made from sheet metal/steel which has been 'forged' through a hot rolling mill, and starts out smooth. The pressing/stamping process only further refines the surface, so extensive final finishing isn't necessary. However you CAN see finishing marks in many stamped pans. They probably cost more... Cheap ones may cover the rough finish with a coating or enamel. Even expensive brands like Le Creuset do this. And that's not a dig - they're solving the problem in a sensible way! They've decided to solve the finishing problem with an enameling process instead of a grinding process. Point is that there's a finishing step involved.

I think the value in cast iron is the moderate mass, unibody construction (so to speak), thermal conductivity (vs. stainless for sure) and how well it takes seasoning. It won't warp as easily as stamped steel, so it's probably a better grill or campfire choice, but I don't actually do those things and maybe someone else can comment.

A buddy of mine who knows cast iron (and can cook!) does love his smooth cast iron, and has even ground one or two. When an abrasives pro (pipefitter, knifemaker) says it's not worth the effort to post-process it, that should give an idea of the cost of labor/process involved to finish a pan properly. He bought a new carbon steel pan and loves it TOO.

I live in New England and we have a lively flea market scene. Over the years I collected ~10 pieces of usable vintage Griswold at reasonable prices in RI and CT. Kept 7 (across two kitchens), gave away the rest to friends. But the prices got so high that buying new production equipment that is properly finished finally made sense.

Re: costs
I'm in the USA, and Stargazer is in the USA, and I ordered during the Veteran's day sale during a pandemic when people were struggling to stay in business. I feel pretty good about spending stimulus funds that way. But make no mistake, a lot of the price is USA labor cost, not merely "betterness", though their design and execution IS high end, IMO.

It's nice when you don't have to do a bunch of dirty cleanup work to get the thing into service. I'd rather be making knives than cleaning (or grinding) cast iron.


----------



## Luftmensch

daizee said:


> Indeed!
> I find the Lodge stuff absurdly heavy per unit of cooking area. I don't need the physical mass of an engine block in a pan, and I generally find all that thermal mass aggravating as well.
> 
> Cast iron pans in general are heavier than their steel (and other) counterparts, so it's not like the Stargazer or vintage Griswold are "thin" or "light" - that's only in comparison to the unfinished Lodge products.
> 
> Cheap cast iron is cast.... and shipped. It's simply unfinished, IMO. Vintage stuff was cast with enough extra mass to tolerate being ground smooth, after which it was a reasonable mass. Stargazer duplicates this engineering process. Cast, grind, season, ship.
> 
> Lodge and Wagner patterns pulled off of old Griswold molds are SHAPED similar to their parent patterns, but the more expensive labor of finishing the product simply isn't done. The result is a pebbly finish that can never be scraped clean. You don't need a gravel driveway in the bottom of your pan to hold seasoning. That said, a mirror finish is probably the other extreme to be avoided as well.
> 
> Steel pans are usually made from sheet metal/steel which has been 'forged' through a hot rolling mill, and starts out smooth. The pressing/stamping process only further refines the surface, so extensive final finishing isn't necessary. However you CAN see finishing marks in many stamped pans. They probably cost more... Cheap ones may cover the rough finish with a coating or enamel. Even expensive brands like Le Creuset do this. And that's not a dig - they're solving the problem in a sensible way! They've decided to solve the finishing problem with an enameling process instead of a grinding process. Point is that there's a finishing step involved.
> 
> I think the value in cast iron is the moderate mass, unibody construction (so to speak), thermal conductivity (vs. stainless for sure) and how well it takes seasoning. It won't warp as easily as stamped steel, so it's probably a better grill or campfire choice, but I don't actually do those things and maybe someone else can comment.
> 
> A buddy of mine who knows cast iron (and can cook!) does love his smooth cast iron, and has even ground one or two. When an abrasives pro (pipefitter, knifemaker) says it's not worth the effort to post-process it, that should give an idea of the cost of labor/process involved to finish a pan properly. He bought a new carbon steel pan and loves it TOO.
> 
> I live in New England and we have a lively flea market scene. Over the years I collected ~10 pieces of usable vintage Griswold at reasonable prices in RI and CT. Kept 7 (across two kitchens), gave away the rest to friends. But the prices got so high that buying new production equipment that is properly finished finally made sense.
> 
> Re: costs
> I'm in the USA, and Stargazer is in the USA, and I ordered during the Veteran's day sale during a pandemic when people were struggling to stay in business. I feel pretty good about spending stimulus funds that way. But make no mistake, a lot of the price is USA labor cost, not merely "betterness", though their design and execution IS high end, IMO.
> 
> It's nice when you don't have to do a bunch of dirty cleanup work to get the thing into service. I'd rather be making knives than cleaning (or grinding) cast iron.



@daizee! Thanks for taking the time to write a reply!

At the risk of reigniting @tcmx3 and @Helicon ... I am somewhere in between. I think both points of view are valid. I doubt the high end cast iron would revolutionise my kitchen... but I can see value in the finer points (weight/smoothness/ergonomics). I am just not sure if I am willing to pay for it.

Lodge is a fairly priced, middle of the road product.... Speaking of engine blocks.... With Lodge, since they are a strong brand, I don't worry that their cast iron is melted down scrap metal. Perhaps it is a cynical attitude... but I feel a little wary of cheap, no-name cast iron.

I hear you on manufacturing. Every additional step adds cost. Like Stargazer, Äüs-ïöñ is made 'local'. They have production in Australia and America - so labour costs are going to be relatively expensive. For products that I know I will use for decades... I don't mind. Supporting local industry is a good thing. Australia doesn't really manufacture anything these days!


----------



## btbyrd

For how I use cast iron, lighter weight is a bug (not a feature) and I don't find smooth finished cast iron to be appreciably less nonstick than the bumpier Lodge finish. And I have no problems with the handles on Lodge pans, which. I don't understand the draw of high priced, non-enameled cast iron apart from aesthetically or from the idea that you're supporting a small local-ish business. I feel similarly about high end carbon steel pans like the beautiful ones from Blu Skillet Ironware. From a performance perspective, expensive cast iron does nothing better and in fact performs worse for my purposes. (YMMV) And it sure does cost a lot more. And from a material/thermodynamic point of view, I don't don't consider it to be high end, just expensive. 
For what it's worth, Lodge is also produced in a country with high labor costs. They've automated a lot of the process and are operating at a scale that these smaller companies can only dream about (producing almost 2 million pans a month). But their factory is pretty amazing. It'd be cool if they figured out how to automate (or mostly automate) a polishing step so that they could produce smooth pans at scale. Not that I'd buy them, since I don't find them to be any more nonstick than how Lodge already is. But it would shut some people up who like to babble on about the imaginary ways their vintage or expensive modern cast iron is from the cheap stuff. (Just joking there, guys... calm down).

Anyway, back to discussion of actual high end pans!


----------



## tcmx3

it's just really hard for me to believe that there is a sane use for cast iron for which a stargazer, griswold, aus-ion etc. is not more than adequate. Ive cooked two ribeyes at once in the 12"er and the crust certainly did not suggest there was inadequate thermal mass despite dropping two fridge cold steaks in there. 

slightly related but I would hope I would not have to explain why a test proposed earlier in this thread about throwing a large quantity of cold water in a heated pan is not only completely ridiculous but also unbelievably stupid/unsafe.

eventually you have to actually use your pans and a longer handle/usable helper, well designed lip and lighter weight are, at least IME with these pans, real wins from that perspective. ok you dont care that's fine I cant tell you what will or wont make your life easier only mine. but I find this focus on benchmarks where everything scores "much more than good enough" strange given you have to put up the thermo-gun and actually cook something at some point.

ultimately if you really desire high thermal mass nothing suggested in this thread, Lodge included, is going to beat a Demeyere, All-Clad or similar quality 7 layer pan that weighs as much as a Lodge except it's got functional handles, heats SUPER evenly and costs 12x as much as the last Lodge I bought.

at least @btbyrd I think you're being reasonable about it even though I ultimately still disagree with you.


----------



## KitchenCommander

Read the whole thread. Lots of great information. Now I have to be on the lookout for deals on AllClad D3 just to try it out. 

I'm a cast iron guy, have a bunch of it. Vintage doesn't have to be expensive, but its considerably more work to find, inspect, and restore a vintage diamond in the rough than buying a new boutique skillet. It depends on how much joy you get in the process, or what your time is worth to you. I've bought many a cracked, warped, and pitted pan with those flaw hidden under decades of grim, only to be revealed after some hours of scrubbing and sanding.

I have found that the Lodge surface is not near as sticky as I thought it was, but I still find value in a smoother surface. One thing that I think helps the Lodge finish, is the texture can keep oil from being displaced by the food. The texture holds oil in the small indentations in the surface instead of the food putting direct contact on a smooth pan surface and displacing all the lubricant away from the food. Though in practice, the smooth skillets still cook great.

Weight appears to be more of a preference than I expected. but in my opinion Lodge goes well past "feels like quality" and into "heavy as heck". Almost impossible to move anything over a #8 (10" diameter) with one hand in the lodge line. Vintage or small batch cast iron has PLENTY of thermal mass for my needs and Vintage pans can be found with just about any thickness you could want, you just have to do some research and go out there in the wild and look. Thin, thick, heavy, light-ish, rough, smooth, shallow, deep, its all out there.

Last point, is that I am purchasing older iron pieces for under Lodge prices. Price varies by location, but I don't live in the north east where many of the foundries once operated either. Only in the larger pieces do prices start to swap due to rarity of large vintage pieces #10 skillets and ovens are a bit pricy and anything larger starts to approach the new production prices. But largely Lodge offers zero cost savings to me on anything #10 size and below, is much heavier, and less refined interior. Honestly 1960's and 1970's LODGE is some of the best value and has about as much thermal mass as the new stuff with a raised heat ring (which I like) and has a slightly smoother interior finish than current production. They seem to be quite availalbe compared to other brands, and they are not "collectible" like some of the well known brands. 

Its a hobby of mine, just as knives are, and copper/steel/stainless pans are for others. I enjoy the hunt, the history, the value, and the physical characteristics of the old iron, which gives it more than just practical value. I think the small batch iron companies do classify as "High End". Small batch manufacturing, additional finishing steps, handmade construction, increased attention to aesthetics, all attributes of a high end product.


----------



## btbyrd

If people are looking for good deals on All Clad, check out Capital Cookware on eBay and Amazon. They sell a lot of open box and factory seconds at great prices. I got a 12" D7 skillet for like $120. You can also sign up for All Clad's official factory seconds sale at this website.

Speaking of actually cooking with cast iron, all I use mine for is cornbread, high temp searing, and shallow frying. And occasionally to serve fajitas and nachos. For searing and frying, I never have to touch the handle, so it's not an issue. For baking cornbread, the short handles on my vintage and Lodge are just fine. And as a service piece, short handles are preferable as they take up less table space. For everyday cooking, I have a strong preference against using cast iron skillets because they're reactive (I drop a lot of acid in my kitchen) and because I don't like the straight, saute pan-like walls of most cast iron skillets (though these help make it better for shallow frying, cornbread, and pizza). All of my vintage cast iron was inherited and the only Lodge I own was purchased when I was a broke college student. If I had to start over again, I doubt I'd buy any (apart from enameled dutch ovens/cocottes).


----------



## Jovidah

The one thing I'm starting to wonder... by the time you make cast iron smooth and thin, is it really any different from simple carbon steel? 

I know carbon steel has its limitations, and when it comes to spreading the heat on crap stoves they're far from ideal... but I still prefer them for stuff like high searing and non-stick stuff (like pancakes). Yes, non-stick pans might have better conductivity - especially the fat cast aluminium ones - and the non stick might work better out of the box.... but with all the other negatives, like essentially eating teflon, not being able to use high heat, having essentially an insulator as your inner layer, and them basically being disposable with all of them lasting but a few years at most, I rather stick to carbon steel these days. 

Yes I know you can do a lot of the 'non-stick' things in stainless steel as well, but some of those things nowhere near as easily. IMO they both have their uses, and I want both in my kitchen.


----------



## tcmx3

Jovidah said:


> The one thing I'm starting to wonder... by the time you make cast iron smooth and thin, is it really any different from simple carbon steel?
> 
> I know carbon steel has its limitations, and when it comes to spreading the heat on crap stoves they're far from ideal... but I still prefer them for stuff like high searing and non-stick stuff (like pancakes). Yes, non-stick pans might have better conductivity - especially the fat cast aluminium ones - and the non stick might work better out of the box.... but with all the other negatives, like essentially eating teflon, not being able to use high heat, having essentially an insulator as your inner layer, and them basically being disposable with all of them lasting but a few years at most, I rather stick to carbon steel these days.
> 
> Yes I know you can do a lot of the 'non-stick' things in stainless steel as well, but some of those things nowhere near as easily. IMO they both have their uses, and I want both in my kitchen.



I cannot get my Matfer pans to hold a seasoning anywhere close to Stargazer, and it's still a LOT thinner/lighter. 

I actually like carbon a lot other than how hard it has been to keep the seasoning on them stable. That said I have a 9.5" I think is most excellent for tortillas/naan/pancakes/etc. The rest went away.


----------



## btbyrd

I threw my Matfer pan away in a fit of rage because it wouldn't hold seasoning. My Dartos keep the seasoning on just fine.


----------



## Jovidah

Never really had problems with the seasoning on my deBuyers unless I did silly things with it... like stuff with acid... or leave it standing overnight after using it. When I tried to redo them a while back for an experiment I was actually struggling to get it all off...


----------



## btbyrd

I think it's a Matfer thing. I've heard of other people having issues.


----------



## Jovidah

Might also be the oil? On my last experiment I tried to follow some internet advice that said 'the type of fat you use doesn't matter'. But I found sunflower oil to be far less effective than what I used last time (think I used flaxseed oil back then).


----------



## Michi

Something with a high smoke point is good. I’ve had good results with rice bran oil.


----------



## MarcelNL

high smoke point and good polymerization potential is what it takes IMO, linseed oil...you never use enough to cause any issue digesting it (don't ask me how I know)


----------



## Luftmensch

MarcelNL said:


> linseed oil



I tried this. It developed a really nice and uniform seasoning...dark and shiny. It started flaking off after several months!  As some other internet critic joked: flax on... flax off!

... I wonder if tung oil would work....


----------



## btbyrd

Only low end cookware needs to be seasoned. Let's get back on track.


----------



## juice

Michi said:


> I’ve had good results with rice bran oil.


Same


----------



## Luftmensch

Jovidah said:


> The one thing I'm starting to wonder... by the time you make cast iron smooth and thin, is it really any different from simple carbon steel?



There is still the thermal mass issue... A thin cast iron skillet will be multiple times thicker than your regular carbon steel pan...

Cast iron has to be... well... cast!!! The high carbon content makes it too brittle to be formed like mild steel. That and the significant risk of cast iron cracking if was only 2-3mm thick. The opposite is true for mild steel... it has a low carbon content which makes it ductile and easy to form.

Like for like... I am sure cast iron and low carbon steel would be near indistinguishable. After all ~98% of the material is the same!






btbyrd said:


> Only low end cookware needs to be seasoned. Let's get back on track.







KitchenCommander said:


> I think the small batch iron companies do classify as "High End". Small batch manufacturing, additional finishing steps, handmade construction, increased attention to aesthetics, all attributes of a high end product.



 I agree.

As noted earlier in the thread.... "high end" means different things to different people. I think most people would agree that the new gen cast iron is "high end" - as judged by the standards of cast iron... but whether or not cast iron is considered "high end" in an absolute sense is another discussion.


----------



## Luftmensch

Anybody have an opinion on Essteele? (Aussies?)

I am assuming they aren't well known outside parts of Europe and Australasia (they used to have manufacturing in Victoria). They are in a premium(ish) bracket. They are made well and look nice (I think).

They have a heavy bottom design - the sandwich is like All-Clad Copper Core. Unlike All-Clad, only the bottom benefits from the sandwich - the side walls are plain stainless steel.

I like their saucepans and stock pots but am ambivalent about the skillets.


----------



## Michi

I have an Esteele stockpot / dutch oven with about 4.5 l capacity. It's been with me for more than thirty years, and is still going strong.


----------



## Luftmensch

Michi said:


> I have an Esteele stockpot / dutch oven with about 4.5 l capacity. It's been with me for more than thirty years, and is still going strong.



Similarly! Except the 30 year part 

Like I say... I am not particularly passionate about the skillet - I prefer steeper walls. The sauce pans and stockpot are great though - I dont see a huge advantage to having a sandwich construction in the walls of these .


----------



## coxhaus

tcmx3 said:


> ultimately if you really desire high thermal mass nothing suggested in this thread, Lodge included, is going to beat a Demeyere, All-Clad or similar quality 7 layer pan that weighs as much as a Lodge except it's got functional handles, heats SUPER evenly and costs 12x as much as the last Lodge I bought.



So, if you have high thermal mass does that mean it will brown as well as cast iron? I have never used a 7 layer All Clad.


----------



## cantdecidewhichone

This thread is going beyond my level of understandings for pans. If anyone happens to open this looking for pan recs, here's what I'm holding.


All-Clad D3 10" fry pan
All-Clad D3 12" deep pan
Smithey 10" chef skillet
Smithey 12" skillet
Smithey 12" farmhouse carbon steel skillet
Heart And Spade Forge 10" carbon steel skillet (on the way)
Heart and Spade Forge 10" carbon steel baker
I'm on an electric Samsung range.


----------



## rickbern

coxhaus said:


> So, if you have high thermal mass does that mean it will brown as well as cast iron? I have never used a 7 layer All Clad.



I have two demeyere pro line skillets and equivalent sizes in carbon steel. If I’m looking to cook steak I’ll grab the carbon steel pan every time. I think they sear better . Never really occurred to me to use a proline, I’ll have to try it someday.


----------



## Nemo

Helicon said:


> I posted this link in the other thread about skillets for induction cooktops, but it seems relevant to this discussion, as well: Heavy Metal: the Science of Cast Iron Cooking – Cooking Issues



Interesting write up. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Helicon

tcmx3 said:


> it's just really hard for me to believe that there is a sane use for cast iron for which a stargazer, griswold, aus-ion etc. is not more than adequate. Ive cooked two ribeyes at once in the 12"er and the crust certainly did not suggest there was inadequate thermal mass despite dropping two fridge cold steaks in there.
> 
> slightly related but I would hope I would not have to explain why a test proposed earlier in this thread about throwing a large quantity of cold water in a heated pan is not only completely ridiculous but also unbelievably stupid/unsafe.
> 
> eventually you have to actually use your pans and a longer handle/usable helper, well designed lip and lighter weight are, at least IME with these pans, real wins from that perspective. ok you dont care that's fine I cant tell you what will or wont make your life easier only mine. but I find this focus on benchmarks where everything scores "much more than good enough" strange given you have to put up the thermo-gun and actually cook something at some point.
> 
> ultimately if you really desire high thermal mass nothing suggested in this thread, Lodge included, is going to beat a Demeyere, All-Clad or similar quality 7 layer pan that weighs as much as a Lodge except it's got functional handles, heats SUPER evenly and costs 12x as much as the last Lodge I bought.
> 
> at least @btbyrd I think you're being reasonable about it even though I ultimately still disagree with you.


There's a lot to unpack here, but let's start at the beginning. The OP wanted recommendations for "high end" frying pans, not merely adequate ones. If adequate is OK with you, great.

As for the experiment I proposed, not once did I suggest "throwing" water anywhere. Once you remove the pan from the oven and place it on a trivet, you simply pour the water into the pan slowly. It's not dangerous, stupid, or unsafe – I've done it multiple times with different types of cookware to no ill effect. If you were to heat the pans to more than 450°F, however, you could potentially run into trouble with thermal shock in cast iron. Just don't be an idiot about it, and you'll be fine.

The real lunacy in your post, however, is writing that nothing suggested in this thread outperforms Demeyere or All-Clad (or even cast iron) for sheer thermal mass. Did you somehow miss my recommendation for Paderno Grand Gourmet (aka Vollrath Centurion)? With 6.5 mm of aluminum and another 1.7 mm of SS in its disc base, it has as much thermal mass as a 6.5 mm thick layer of cast iron – far thicker even than Lodge, and much more than in Demeyere's Proline, as well. Alternatively, the OP could consider some thick bare aluminum pans from Alegacy Eagleware or Agnelli. Oh, and the best part is that Paderno pieces can often be found for far less than $100. For example: Paderno 11115 – 28 POT 28 CM Double Handled Saute Pan Stainless Steel : Amazon.de: Home & Kitchen

It's probably also worth reading this review of the 12" Lodge skillet, just for reference: https://www.centurylife.org/in-dept...12-inch-cast-iron-skillet-10sk-l10sk3ashh41b/


----------



## coxhaus

Helicon said:


> There's a lot to unpack here, but let's start at the beginning. The OP wanted recommendations for "high end" frying pans, not merely adequate ones. If adequate is OK with you, great.
> 
> As for the experiment I proposed, not once did I suggest "throwing" water anywhere. Once you remove the pan from the oven and place it on a trivet, you simply pour the water into the pan slowly. It's not dangerous, stupid, or unsafe – I've done it multiple times with different types of cookware to no ill effect. If you were to heat the pans to more than 450°F, however, you could potentially run into trouble with thermal shock in cast iron. Just don't be an idiot about it, and you'll be fine.
> 
> The real lunacy in your post, however, is writing that nothing suggested in this thread outperforms Demeyere or All-Clad (or even cast iron) for sheer thermal mass. Did you somehow miss my recommendation for Paderno Grand Gourmet (aka Vollrath Centurion)? With 6.5 mm of aluminum and another 1.7 mm of SS in its disc base, it has as much thermal mass as a 6.5 mm thick layer of cast iron – far thicker even than Lodge, and much more than in Demeyere's Proline, as well. Alternatively, the OP could consider some thick bare aluminum pans from Alegacy Eagleware or Agnelli. Oh, and the best part is that Paderno pieces can often be found for far less than $100. For example: Paderno 11115 – 28 POT 28 CM Double Handled Saute Pan Stainless Steel : Amazon.de: Home & Kitchen
> 
> It's probably also worth reading this review of the 12" Lodge skillet, just for reference: In-Depth Product Review: Lodge 12-inch Cast-Iron Skillet 10SK L10SK3ASHH41B



I am no expert and I am just trying to understand what is being said. I owned an Emeril 12-inch fry pan with a big silver disc. Whether this would be the same I am not sure but I was not impressed and I gave it away. I have a gas Viking range and the lack of reaction time on that Emeril pan made me nuts. I am not fond of silver discs on fry pans. I do like cast iron and carbon pans.

PS
I wonder if there is a difference in a silver disc being isolated on the bottom of the pan to where it cannot dissipate heat all over the pan like up the sides and such.

PSS
I do have to say the Emeril silver disc pan did brown better than any stainless pan I have owned. I also owned a silver disc 12-quart pasta pot for several years. I down sized and moved to a smaller pot without a silver disc. The whole time I owned my silver disc pot I always thought it was slow to heat water. Was I right?


----------



## tcmx3

Since you cant block people from quoting you, as a general suggestion to folks in this thread maybe ignore the person going out of their way to make really bad faith intentional misreadings so they can try and drag everyone to clowntown. It's unlikely they have anything valuable to say.

To get back to point, the two best pans I own, out of many, many pans of pretty much every material you can buy, are the Demeyere 12.6" proline and the Stargazer 12".

When you want to actually cook food instead of passing arbitrary, meaningless tests that tell you nothing about how it is to actually cook with a pan, either should be on your list of candidates.


----------



## Jovidah

Different pans for different things. Sure I have some big fat heavy stainless pans as well, and they're great for spreading out the heat. But if I'm making cheesepancakes or something with eggs they're just less ideal IMO. Even something as simple as having a ton of thermal mass (applies to basically all heavy pans) also means they respond much slower. There's no free lunch here. Most disk bottoms come with their own caveats, like hot rings / cold rings outside of the disk, or at the very least sidewalls that tend to behave quite different from the bottom itself.

Yes carbon steel and cast iron might be affordable, and I'm open to any suggestions for 'high end' non-stick options that don't die within a few years, but so far I haven't found one. Not saying they're a be-all and end-all since they come with their own set of limitations as well, but even if I had limitless budget I'd still end up having at least a few.

In the end 'high-end' is problematic a problematic concept since it means different things to different people, and even if you only look at price there's plenty of stuff that simply not matches people's preference or cooking habbits. For every lover of Demeyere 7-layer proline I can just as easily find someone who hates them (for example for being too heavy).


----------



## coxhaus

I think the range can be part of the equation on whether you use gas, electric or induction. Some people may be use to moving a hot thick pan off to a cold burner or cold grate to pull the heat out of the bottom. This in my mind would have an impact on the reaction time of a pan. But I think a cast iron pan can dissipate heat better than a silver disc pan since the heat off the cast iron dissipates off both sides, handles and all over so the reaction time is better than a thick silver disc is the way I see it on my gas range.

I would like to try a 7-layer pan including the sides since they can dissipate heat better than a silver disc on just the bottom. Maybe heating will be better using the sides instead of just the bottom. It may make for less heat intensity using the sides instead of just the bottom it seems like to me.


----------



## rmrf

coxhaus said:


> I think the range can be part of the equation on whether you use gas, electric or induction. Some people may be use to moving a hot thick pan off to a cold burner or cold grate to pull the heat out of the bottom. This in my mind would have an impact on the reaction time of a pan. But I think a cast iron pan can dissipate heat better than a silver disc pan since the heat off the cast iron dissipates off both sides, handles and all over so the reaction time is better than a thick silver disc is the way I see it on my gas range.



I'm not it makes sense that a disk pan cools appreciably slower than a cast iron pan. Radiation is probably a very small percentage of the heat loss, so most is probably through the air, which means convection will probably dominate. I would guess that adding the little extra surface area wouldn't make a huge difference. Anyways, the thermal conductivity of iron vs stainless steel is only 35 vs 15 W/(m K), verses 230 W/(m K) for Al.

I am shocked there are so many expensive cast iron pans (Smithey, Äüs-ïöñ, etc) but stainless clad copper with excessively thick copper (>3mm) is not common.



rickbern said:


> I have two demeyere pro line skillets and equivalent sizes in carbon steel. If I’m looking to cook steak I’ll grab the carbon steel pan every time. I think they sear better . Never really occurred to me to use a proline, I’ll have to try it someday.


I highly recommend searing steak in a proline! I used to use carbon steel (matfer) or a lodge to sear steak but I find my proline works significantly better on my induction stove. I preheat until it is hot, then add a little oil and sear. I mostly do reverse sear these days so I tend to use more oil, less heat, and lots of flipping. When cooking a raw steak, I can blacken the exterior and have the interior below 100F for a 1-1.5in steak, flipping every 30 seconds or so. I personally prefer slightly lower heat and more oil however. I also used to sear my beef stew in carbon steel or cast iron but I found it was a lot more even in a proline. 

The only things I cannot do in stainless clad are fried rice and fried noodles. (I just changed the way I do eggs)


----------



## coxhaus

I wonder if the same holds true for gas as well as induction. I have never used induction so I am lost when you talk about induction. So, is reaction time better on an induction range than gas? Does induction heat up faster and cool down faster than a gas range? My Viking gas range has big heavy grates that hold heat. What about induction? When it's off is it off or does the induction hold heat?

To me even heating is not as important as heating up and cooling down as long as you don't have really bad hot spots. I am getting by with an All Clad D5 fry pan and a tri layer Viking USA made sauce pan using gas. I still use my carbon pans more. I use my stainless for acid dishes. I hated the reaction time on my old Emeril silver disc pan on my gas range.

Why can't you do fried rice in a proline if it browns better?


----------



## Luftmensch

coxhaus said:


> I have never used induction so I am lost when you talk about induction. So, is reaction time better on an induction range than gas? Does induction heat up faster and cool down faster than a gas range? My Viking gas range has big heavy grates that hold heat. What about induction? When it's off is it off or does the induction hold heat?



I have only fiddled with other peoples' induction stoves. 

In principle induction is more efficient. It induces eddy currents inside the cookware. Due to internal resistance of the material, it heats up. This is very quick and more or less a direct transfer of energy. On the other hand, gas transfers heat through convection - hot gasses imparting heat to the cookware. Given this method is indirect - it is less efficient and slower... in theory!! It all depends on design and power ratings.

Like you say... large hobs can store heat. On the other hand, at least the trivets creates an air gap. Although induction can instantly change the amount of heat applied to the pan, it relies on close proximity to the pan. All the supporting material behind the pan is a potential heat sink/source that can store and conduct heat. If this is designed well, it will store less heat than a clunky gas hob... if it is designed poorly it could be more...

I would say induction is likely to generally have the edge... but they are probably close!

Somebody with intimate experience with both is better positioned to answer


----------



## Michi

For an induction cooktop, the hottest the cooktop can get is the temperature of the pot/pan on top of it. (The pan heats the cooktop, not the other way around.)

Glass and ceramic are poor conductors of heat, so an induction top will remain hot for a while after you turn the magnet off. It won't be as hot though as a conventional glass electric cooktop, where the cooking surface gets much hotter than the pan.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

Induction is something I know a little about. Not so much in cooking but in casting. Induction means there is a magnetic field wherein the coil and the targeted media couple, things get excited and heat ensues. But only those things that the field are tuned to will react. This why you can put your hand on a freshly used induction burner and not get burned.

Again, I don't know a lot about how induction stovetops are setup but with my experience in induction, I'd be highly skeptical of any benefit beyond the safety aspect they bring. And, all of the complaints and frustrations I've read and had have heard in person, support that opinion.

The induction field is tuned. In other words, it is quite specific. Well, at least to be optimal. This is why there are so many people asking for better cookware options for their induction tops. 

Induction tops are going to provide fairly quick heat to whatever material they are coupled to but I can't help wonder how that magnetic field is distorted when a pan is say, a third off the coil...?

I've used gas tops and they are super nice for sure, but I've also been using an electric coil top for about twenty years now and I don't mind saying I make some pretty good food. Just have to learn your stuff, buy accordingly, and cook appropriately.

I'd rather own an old coil stove than an induction top.


----------



## coxhaus

Michi said:


> For an induction cooktop, the hottest the cooktop can get is the temperature of the pot/pan on top of it. (The pan heats the cooktop, not the other way around.)
> 
> Glass and ceramic are poor conductors of heat, so an induction top will remain hot for a while after you turn the magnet off. It won't be as hot though, as a conventional glass electric cooktop, where the cooking surface gets much hotter than the pan.



So, does induction adjust to different pan sizes so it can heat evenly?


----------



## sansho

i have a fair bit of experience with various kinds of cooktops.

the only thing i have no experience with is old or entry-level induction. the only inductions i've used are new and high-end.

imo:

*quality induction > high-quality, open-burner gas >>> "infrared" (below-surface) resistive element > closed-burner gas > exposed "coil" resistive element*

there is of course some overlap between categories depending on implementation and build quality. for example, some consumer/residential-grade closed-burner gas cooktops are so sһitty in terms of output control. hard to get a low simmer. and some of them don't give you a variety of burner sizes, so it's impossible to use a small pot unless you have it halfway on the burner. compared to such a cooktop, i'd take an exposed-element (coil style) electric any day.

*that said, i feel strongly that high-end induction and open-burner gas cooktops are clearly and without exception superior to other cooktop technologies.* between the two of these, i can see someone wanting to go with gas for various reasons. i cooked for years on a nice 6-burner commercial garland with beautiful, gigantic, star-pattern cast burners. but after using induction, i can't go back. i have the commercial gas garland in my summer home. no, it's not installed correctly. it's not vented adequately. it sticks out too far because of nonstandard (nonresidential) appliance depth 












*for everyday cooking at home, it's induction all the way.*

the spatial power distribution is at least as even as my nice gas burners were.
peak output is comparable.
the output control is superior -- it's very easy to get a wide range of repeatable low lows.
*the hottest thing in the entire apparatus is the cookware itself.* this combined with the high efficiency yields many benefits. you don't heat up the kitchen with waste heat. less waste heat also means reduced venting requirements. if something spills, it doesn't get baked onto the surface easily since nothing around the pan is not. no other cooktop technology is as easy to clean.
the time-response is faster. a big part of that is everything around the cookware is cooler than the cookware, so if you turn down the heat, it drops quickly.
it's much safer. i seriously sometimes have kitchen towels a half inch away from a ripping hot skillet to catch oil spatter for less cleanup. what other cooktop technology permits this? "flame tamers" are a thing of the past. with an appropriately low output level, it is virtually impossible to scorch something unless the pan runs dry.

at home, i only use gas for: my wok burner, my neapolitan pizza oven, and my grill. all of them hook up to gas outside 

as said above, you _can_ get used to almost anything. these are all tools designed by smart people for cooking at some price point. they all work "fine". but this is a forum of cooking enthusiasts with discretionary income for hobbies, so i don't understand the acceptance or even praise of inferior technology. i see people buying and selling knives more expensive than acceptable cooktops, lol.


----------



## Michi

coxhaus said:


> So, does induction adjust to different pan sizes so it can heat evenly?


A small pot on a large burner is fine, provided it's not so small that the burner no longer senses it.

A large pot on a small burner is also fine, with the obvious caveat that the pot will be heated only to the extent of the burner.


----------



## Jovidah

sansho said:


> as said above, you _can_ get used to almost anything. these are all tools designed by smart people for cooking at some price point. they all work "fine". but this is a forum of cooking enthusiasts with discretionary income for hobbies, so i don't understand the acceptance or even praise of inferior technology. i see people buying and selling knives more expensive than acceptable cooktops, lol.


To be fair a lot of people don't necessarily have a choice in whether they cook on gas, induction or electric, especially when living in rental places.


----------



## coxhaus

Michi said:


> A small pot on a large burner is fine, provided it's not so small that the burner no longer senses it.
> 
> A large pot on a small burner is also fine, with the obvious caveat that the pot will be heated only to the extent of the burner.



So, would a large silver disc pan be something you would want for a small burner? Or would it be better to get all big burners?


----------



## sansho

Jovidah said:


> To be fair a lot of people don't necessarily have a choice in whether they cook on gas, induction or electric, especially when living in rental places.



good point. counterpoint: you can get respectable 120V induction modules that you can set on your counter. portable.


----------



## Michi

coxhaus said:


> So, would a large silver disc pan be something you would want for a small burner? Or would it be better to get all big burners?


I have no idea. I don't actually own an induction cooktop, but I've cooked a bunch of times on one at a friend's place. Someone else might be able to chime in?


----------



## sansho

coxhaus said:


> So, would a large silver disc pan be something you would want for a small burner? Or would it be better to get all big burners?



ime, for induction, there is no benefit to smaller burners. small cookware works fine on big burners. i only use my smaller burners with smaller pots/pans when the big ones are occupied.


----------



## Jovidah

sansho said:


> good point. counterpoint: you can get respectable 120V induction modules that you can set on your counter. portable.


Yeah but most rental places that expect you to use gas for cooking usually aren't wired to have several of those running in your kitchen...  
Although it is a perfectly viable way use one of those to add a 'simmer'-option if you find your current stove is 'too much'. Personally I just throw stuff in the oven.


----------



## sansho

Jovidah said:


> Yeah but most rental places that expect you to use gas for cooking usually aren't wired to have *several* of those running in your kitchen...
> Although it is a perfectly viable way use one of those to add a 'simmer'-option if you find your current stove is 'too much'. Personally I just throw stuff in the oven.



edit: i'm sorry, i misread what you wrote. you're right, many apartment kitchens aren't wired for several of them. if you have only one unoccupied circuit in there, you can only run one portable induction module.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

sansho said:


> ...
> 
> as said above, you _can_ get used to almost anything. these are all tools designed by smart people for cooking at some price point. they all work "fine". but this is a forum of cooking enthusiasts with discretionary income for hobbies, so i don't understand the acceptance or even praise of inferior technology. i see people buying and selling knives more expensive than acceptable cooktops, lol.



I think discretionary might be relative here. While cooking is for me to some extent a hobby, it is mostly a necessity. I live in a very old house and don't even have dishwasher (not that I want one) and in many regions, utility changes are very expensive and sometimes prohibited. 

This is a forum of kitchen knife enthusiasts. That would of course imply a love of cooking but it also, at least to me, implies a high degree of respect for how the cooking is done. Fitting a house with gas and commercial grade appliances is not the same thing as buying a $300 knife to enjoy.


----------



## daizee

I lent a spare vehicle and got some fresh produce from the shop landlady tonight. Wish I had the induction cooktop here. The Stargazer seasoning is still in progress (hence so light), but one of these days I may oil it up and chuck it in the oven.


----------



## Luftmensch

Now when I browse KKF, and am not logged in, I get adverts for Stargazer 

I see Australia finally has an importer for Smithy cast iron (the barbeque company) - no stargazer though...


----------



## daizee

Ha!
I think Stargazer only sells direct, but I suppose one could contact them directly about shipping upside down.


----------



## JASinIL2006

Jovidah said:


> The one thing I'm starting to wonder... by the time you make cast iron smooth and thin, is it really any different from simple carbon steel?
> 
> I know carbon steel has its limitations, and when it comes to spreading the heat on crap stoves they're far from ideal... but I still prefer them for stuff like high searing and non-stick stuff (like pancakes). Yes, non-stick pans might have better conductivity - especially the fat cast aluminium ones - and the non stick might work better out of the box.... but with all the other negatives, like essentially eating teflon, not being able to use high heat, having essentially an insulator as your inner layer, and them basically being disposable with all of them lasting but a few years at most, I rather stick to carbon steel these days.
> 
> Yes I know you can do a lot of the 'non-stick' things in stainless steel as well, but some of those things nowhere near as easily. IMO they both have their uses, and I want both in my kitchen.



My old Griswold performs a lot more like a DeBuyer carbon steel pan than a heavier Lodge cast iron pan. I do prefer the smooth cooking surface of the Griswold, but there are times when I need the heavier, heat-sink capabilities of the Lodge pan. I would never, though, cook scrambled eggs or delicate proteins in my Lodge; I would not hesitate to do so in m Griswold (or my DeBuyer). 

And I won't part with any of them!


----------



## McMan

JASinIL2006 said:


> My old Griswold performs a lot more like a DeBuyer carbon steel pan than a heavier Lodge cast iron pan. I do prefer the smooth cooking surface of the Griswold, but there are times when I need the heavier, heat-sink capabilities of the Lodge pan. I would never, though, cook scrambled eggs or delicate proteins in my Lodge; I would not hesitate to do so in m Griswold (or my DeBuyer).
> 
> And I won't part with any of them!


Yeah, old Griswold is special. I think some of the love for Lodge would fade if more people had a chance to try old Griswold (or even old Wagner or Birmingham or Wapak etc. etc.). 
I think it's hard to find Griswold in a lot of the country and prices have risen a lot recently so Ebay is no help. But the fact that old Griswold exists and I have some makes it hard for me to get interested in the new 'artisinal' cast iron that costs an arm and a leg.


----------



## coxhaus

Has anybody used both an All Clad D3 and a copper core? How do they compare? I am not sure I want to polish copper. William Sonoma has an All Clad saute' D3 pan on sale. I like the idea of an 8-inch pan. I have a Viking US made 3 ply 3.4 qt but it can be big sometimes with just the wife. I do like my Viking pan. Should I be happy with a D3?

So, I read about the Demeyere proline and I am sure it is what I would want. It seems if you buy the curved pan you end up with clad but if you buy the flat bottom pans you end up with a silver disc. I am sure it is better than an Emeril silver disc but it may not be what I want on a gas Viking range. It seems to be rated as the best induction pan which I don't care about since I am gas.

I like the wider pans since I have big burners on my Viking range better than just using a regular 2 qt sauce pan. 

The nice thing about an All-Clad copper core is they have replaced the middle stainless with a thin copper so you end up with 2 aluminum and 1 copper core sandwiched together making for a better reactive core. But is it really?

Maybe if I could bring myself to polish, one of the French made copper pans would be fun.


----------



## tcmx3

coxhaus said:


> Has anybody used both an All Clad D3 and a copper core? How do they compare? I am not sure I want to polish copper. William Sonoma has an All Clad saute' D3 pan on sale. I like the idea of an 8-inch pan. I have a Viking US made 3 ply 3.4 qt but it can be big sometimes with just the wife. I do like my Viking pan. Should I be happy with a D3?
> 
> So, I read about the Demeyere proline and I am sure it is what I would want. It seems if you buy the curved pan you end up with clad but if you buy the flat bottom pans you end up with a silver disc. I am sure it is better than an Emeril silver disc but it may not be what I want on a gas Viking range. It seems to be rated as the best induction pan which I don't care about since I am gas.



I dont buy the proline stuff for like saucepans, instead I buy the 5 layer stuff since that is clad all around. I have their 4 quarter, great saucepan. 

Ive not used copper core, but I have two D3s and I still love them, they are light, easy to manipulate, and nearly bomb proof minus scratches. I will say I do prefer the proline but I find a very stable pan preferable for a frying pan, and the responsiveness of the D3 is more suitable to other applications. JMO


----------



## Jovidah

If you want a clad saucepan from DeMeyere they have those too, but you have to look for the conoical saucier / saute pans. The highest grade line there is called Atlantis. They have them in a few other lines as well but I think those are thinner / less layers.


----------



## coxhaus

I just noticed William Sonoma has the Demeyere Atlantis Stainless Saucepans on sale right now. I think this is the same as the proline. I guess these are the disc type but I am not real sure.

Demeyere Atlantis Stainless-Steel Saucepans | Williams Sonoma (williams-sonoma.com)

So, watching one of the Demeyere videos the guy explains that cooking, frying, and steaming all need different body construction. Their fry pans have clad sides.


----------



## Jovidah

As far as I know all the straight wall pans from DeMeyere are disc bottoms... you want fully clad you'll need to get something with slanted / curved sidewalls.


----------



## tcmx3

Jovidah said:


> As far as I know all the straight wall pans from DeMeyere are disc bottoms... you want fully clad you'll need to get something with slanted / curved sidewalls.



I do not believe you are correct. My recollection is the Industry5 saucepans are fully clad.

Zwilling themselves says that it is 5 ply construction "all the way to the rim", that doesnt sound like disk bottom to me.


----------



## Jovidah

tcmx3 said:


> I do not believe you are correct. My recollection is the Industry5 saucepans are fully clad.
> 
> Zwilling themselves says that it is 5 ply construction "all the way to the rim", that doesnt sound like disk bottom to me.


Interesting, looks like you're right. Kinda atypical since what I said was pretty much how DeMeyere used to advertise it themselves (because in their opinion this distinction led to the best performance for both types of pans).


----------



## coxhaus

It is confusing. I spent all day looking at pans. I still don't know what I want. I was originally thinking a saute' pan or small fry pan with even heating and fast reaction time on both heat up cool down using gas.


----------



## tcmx3

coxhaus said:


> It is confusing. I spent all day looking at pans. I still don't know what I want. I was originally thinking a saute' pan or small fry pan with even heating and fast reaction time on both heat up cool down using gas.



all-clad d3. relatively cheap, light enough to be responsive, relatively even heating, tough as nails.

steel lined copper obviously is the best fit nominally but you have to want to put up with that.


----------



## rickbern

Pro line is the brand name for high end skillets. They’re clad, but much more deluxe than all clad 

Atlantis lines up with proline but it’s a super thick disk base. Fissler is the closest direct competitor to Atlantis, I think they’re more bang for the buck


----------



## Jovidah

Not all Atlantis pans are disk bottoms though; the curved conical saute / saucier pans are clad pans, not disk bottoms. At least they're consistently inconsistent. 
I think you're right on the proline thing; only ever saw skillets with that name.


----------



## rickbern

coxhaus said:


> It is confusing. I spent all day looking at pans. I still don't know what I want. I was originally thinking a saute' pan or small fry pan with even heating and fast reaction time on both heat up cool down using gas.


Cox, I’d give this guy a close look. Does double duty in my kitchen as a multi purpose mid size saucepan and a small sauté pan. Deep enough to braise in for small meals. One of the best pans I ever bought. Stick with the 20 cm size. 









Stainless Steel Saucepan with Lid & Pour Spout | Fissler Shop


The Stainless Steel Saucepan with Lid & Pour Spout Original-Profi® is made of 18/10 stainless steel, compatible with all-stove base, and ovenproof up to 428°F.



www.fissler.com


----------



## rickbern

coxhaus said:


> It is confusing. I spent all day looking at pans. I still don't know what I want. I was originally thinking a saute' pan or small fry pan with even heating and fast reaction time on both heat up cool down using gas.


The other alternative is get that proline skillet in 24 cm. It’s a great small skillet, I just don’t find skillets as versatile as sauté pans.


----------



## coxhaus

rickbern said:


> Cox, I’d give this guy a close look. Does double duty in my kitchen as a multi purpose mid size saucepan and a small sauté pan. Deep enough to braise in for small meals. One of the best pans I ever bought. Stick with the 20 cm size.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainless Steel Saucepan with Lid & Pour Spout | Fissler Shop
> 
> 
> The Stainless Steel Saucepan with Lid & Pour Spout Original-Profi® is made of 18/10 stainless steel, compatible with all-stove base, and ovenproof up to 428°F.
> 
> 
> 
> www.fissler.com


I am not sure I really want a sauce pan. I have so many Le Creuset sauce pans.


----------



## coxhaus

rickbern said:


> The other alternative is get that proline skillet in 24 cm. It’s a great small skillet, I just don’t find skillets as versatile as sauté pans.



Isn't proline the same as Demeyere Atlantis pans? They both come up in google.

Demeyere Atlantis Stainless-Steel Frying Pans | Williams Sonoma (williams-sonoma.com)


----------



## Steampunk

coxhaus said:


> It is confusing. I spent all day looking at pans. I still don't know what I want. I was originally thinking a saute' pan or small fry pan with even heating and fast reaction time on both heat up cool down using gas.



I can definitely recommend Demeyere, if for no other reason than they have no rivets on the inside, and the surface finish makes them easier to clean up at the end of the day. Whether you pick an Industry (5-layer all-clad), an Atlantis (7-layer, sometimes disc bottom, sometimes all-clad.), or a John Pawson (Same as Atlantis; sometimes disc bottom, sometimes all-clad 7-layer.) you're going to get a pan with great handles, easy cleanup, and good heating characteristics. They 'just work'. If you want even heating up the sides in a skillet, you can go with any line, since all the skillets are fully-clad. If you want even heating up the sides in a saute, go with the Industry 5. The Atlantis/Pro-Line, and John Pawson are disk bottom.

Mauviel 5-layer stainless is a nice one for responsive, fast, even heating, up to very high temperatures for stainless. It's rated up to 680f, which is nice for some things. Demeyere is rated up to 500f. However, between the rivets and rougher surface finish on the inside, it's more of a PITA to clean. They do fully-clad sautes, skillets, and braisers of various sizes, which is handy. Doesn't retain heat as well as Fissler or Demeyere disc bottoms, but does respond quickly. It works more like thinner carbon steel in terms of sinking coolness out initially, and then pumps heat back into the food quickly based upon what the stove is outputting. Great for strong gas. More even heat than thin carbon, and of course non-reactive. Interesting pans. There's a learning curve, but a rewarding one.

Fissler are also easy to clean; almost as much as Demeyere. Their big aluminum disk at the base isn't the fastest to react, but it's very even, and subtle, and they hold the temperature you set them at very well. Gently searing meats, and doing low sautes in these pans are excellent. However - like any disc bottom - they wouldn't be my first choices for oven-work, or slow braises, where ECI really seems to shine. Also not my first choice for pan sauces. Demeyere Industry and Mauviel seems to be a bit more responsive and even for those. Also not my choice for stir-fry, hot/fast sort of work, where carbon rules.

I'd probably say Demeyere Industry 5 or Mauviel fits the bill described. Mauviel might react a smidge faster than Industry 5. Not always in a good way, if you're searing, and aren't pumping some serious BTU's into it. Stays even, though.

Hope this helps.


----------



## rickbern

coxhaus said:


> I am not sure I really want a sauce pan. I have so many Le Creuset sauce pans.
> View attachment 137432


Then look at the 24cm sauté pan from fissler. I have a proline stacked on top of this pan, I constantly move the skillet out of the way to use this









Stainless Steel Sauté Pan with Lid & Handle | Fissler Shop


This Stainless Steel Sauté Pan with Lid & Handle Original-Profi® is made of 18/10 stainless steel, compatible with all-stove base, and ovenproof up to 428°F.



www.fissler.com


----------



## coxhaus

Yes, I don't need a stainless pan to replace my cast iron or carbon pans. I will still use those.

Rick, that Fissler pan reminds me of my Le Creuset which are nice pans but they do not cool down very quickly.

So, nobody has tried an All-Clad copper pan? I just read a review and they say it heats up faster and cools down faster than their D3. I don't know if it is true or not. They also say the MC2 line is about the same.


----------



## McMan

coxhaus said:


> Isn't proline the same as Demeyere Atlantis pans? They both come up in google.
> 
> Demeyere Atlantis Stainless-Steel Frying Pans | Williams Sonoma (williams-sonoma.com)


Nope. Atlantis is the heavy disk bottom. Proline is clad (7 layer).



https://www.demeyere-online.com/content/demeyere/uk/en/series/series/atlantis.html




https://www.demeyere-online.com/content/demeyere/uk/en/series/frying_pans/proline.html



I had an Atlantis saucepan. Never bonded with it--this was actually the pan that turned me off from disc-bottomed pans. Sure, the disk does quite well to conduct/hold heat but the walls are so thin they create hotspots, so things that touch the wall can get scorched (think diced onions, roux, etc.). This was compounded by the fact that where the walls meet the disk is a 90-degree angle, making it even more difficult to get a utensil in that angle. I think to some extent it's a matter of taste--clad pans have their issues too--and also a matter of usage, history (more disc bottomed pans in use in Europe?), plus what variables might be most important to an individual user.


----------



## rickbern

coxhaus said:


> Yes, I don't need a stainless pan to replace my cast iron or carbon pans. I will still use those.
> 
> Rick, that Fissler pan reminds me of my Le Creuset which are nice pans but they do not cool down very quickly.
> 
> So, nobody has tried an All-Clad copper pan? I just read a review and they say it heats up faster and cools down faster than their D3. I don't know if it is true or not. They also say the MC2 line is about the same.


If you want a pan that behaves like a copper pan, why not just get one?





Classic Frying Pan, 24 cm (9.4 in) | Falk Culinair USA


The low flared sides and flat bottoms of our frying pans let moisture escape to facilitate searing and browning.




www.copperpans.com


----------



## rickbern

Falk also has a line with incased 2mm copper. Take a look for it. They describe it as mostly for induction


----------



## coxhaus

rickbern said:


> Falk also has a line with incased 2mm copper. Take a look for it. They describe it as mostly for induction



I may in the end order a copper pan. I think copper with 2.5 mm would work for gas. I just have to come around to polishing copper.

In the mean time I ordered an All-Clad copper 5-quart saute' pan. I could not find a smaller one in copper clad. I want to see what the All-Clad copper pan is like since nobody has tried one.
All-Clad Copper Core Deep Sauté Pan | Williams Sonoma (williams-sonoma.com)


----------



## Nemo

coxhaus said:


> I just have to come around to polishing copper.



Do you polish all of your carbon knives? You could just let the copper patinate.


----------



## coxhaus

Yea but copper pots end up with spots and spilled stuff on them. I think it would bug me.


----------



## coxhaus

rickbern said:


> Falk also has a line with incased 2mm copper. Take a look for it. They describe it as mostly for induction



I just realized you are talking about the Copper Coeur Line which is clad 1.9 copper. Does anybody have one of these? They cost as much as a thicker copper pan that you have to polish.


----------



## Luftmensch

coxhaus said:


> I may in the end order a copper pan. I think copper with 2.5 mm would work for gas. I just have to come around to polishing copper.





coxhaus said:


> Yea but copper pots end up with spots and spilled stuff on them. I think it would bug me.



Like @Nemo said... polishing isnt mandatory. 

A few posts back I mentioned Essteele. I am not advocating this option but it looks vaguely close to All Clad Copper in composition. There is a nice ring of copper around the base.... you can choose to polish it... or you can choose not to. I _don't_. Each to their own - but the brighter the copper is, the more it sticks out like dogs bollocks. I find the patina (at least oxidisation) helps it settle in.

Most of the clad copper options mentioned here are similar in that you only get a peekaboo of copper. Some have a full surface of copper visible on the exterior. I would gladly let those patina as well. I may be just a _little_ more careful not to spill food/oil over the sides. Seeing as the term gets bandied around a lot... wabi-sabi... right?



coxhaus said:


> It is confusing. I spent all day looking at pans. I still don't know what I want. I was originally thinking a saute' pan or small fry pan with even heating and fast reaction time on both heat up cool down using gas.





Do you even need anything? 




coxhaus said:


> I am not sure I really want a sauce pan.





coxhaus said:


> Yes, I don't need a stainless pan to replace my cast iron or carbon pans. I will still use those.



Sounds like you are in 'thin' skillet territory?





coxhaus said:


> In the mean time I ordered an All-Clad copper 5-quart saute' pan.



Congrats 

Beautiful pan. I am sure you will be happy.


----------



## Nemo

Luftmensch said:


> Like @Nemo said... polishing isnt mandatory.
> 
> A few posts back I mentioned Essteele. I am not advocating this option but it looks vaguely close to All Clad Copper in composition. There is a nice ring of copper around the base.... you can choose to polish it... or you can choose not to. I _don't_. Each to their own - but the brighter the copper is, the more it sticks out like dogs bollocks. I find the patina (at least oxidisation) helps it settle in.
> 
> Most of the clad copper options mentioned here are similar in that you only get a peekaboo of copper.


I looked pretty closely at the Esstele options.

I think that the Esstele clad option is called Per Sempre and it is more like the All Clad D5 in construction: a stainless cladding around a core of 2 layers of aluminium around another layer of stainless. The middle layer of stainless makes no sense to me.

[Edit 13/8/21n further investigation I realisehis is not actually true. See post below from today]

The other Esstele stainless option is called Per Vita and has an aluminium and copper base (it's not clad per se). They don't say how thick the different layers are.


----------



## Nemo

coxhaus said:


> Yea but copper pots end up with spots and spilled stuff on them. I think it would bug me.


Fair enough


----------



## Pertti

coxhaus said:


> I just realized you are talking about the Copper Coeur Line which is clad 1.9 copper. Does anybody have one of these? They cost as much as a thicker copper pan that you have to polish.



Im an induction only user and have owned 6 Falk copper coeur pans for a year now. They are pretty nice with some caveats, though, and in my view the best fully clad pans on the market, still today. FWIW.

If you are a non induction user, I would steer you towards the bimetal copper pans, though, if you are after this type of pans. Get over the need of polishing etc.

On induction, for cladded pans especially, I think one should take care to pick the pan bottom size according to the hob size. No overhanging, or there can and likely will be a disappointment in evenness.

So, my 24cm Falk CC frypan gets up to heat fast and cooks rather even on my biggest hob of "21cm". The bottom of the pan is properly sized for the hob and I enjoy it there a great deal. However I often need that hob for a bigger pan when I cook for my family...

My 28cm Falk CC frypan then... it has overhang. It certainly still cooks on the outside perimeter, but if I crowd the pan, especially then I can see how it heats more in the mid sector.. and its a bit annoying, tbh..

For frypans or saute pans on induction my general preference is thick disc based / hybrid cookware. My new fave frypans are my two Lagostina Accademia pans with alu disc attached to the (thin) fully clad vessel. They heat evenly and have nice heat retention, ample frying power so to say.

I also have the Paderno GG 28cm frypan and it is mucho even, more so than the Lagostina, directly over the disc, but I like to use the Lagostina over that generally as the sidewalls are hot there too. Paderno so far has been my steak pan basically, but its a great pan for all things frying...

I know little about gas and electric... I imagine 2.5 copper being nice on a good gas burner though.


----------



## hmh

coxhaus said:


> I may in the end order a copper pan. I think copper with 2.5 mm would work for gas. I just have to come around to polishing copper.
> 
> In the mean time I ordered an All-Clad copper 5-quart saute' pan. I could not find a smaller one in copper clad. I want to see what the All-Clad copper pan is like since nobody has tried one.
> All-Clad Copper Core Deep Sauté Pan | Williams Sonoma (williams-sonoma.com)



I have this specific saute pan (size seemed ideal between the too small 4qt and too big 6qt) + the skillet in copper core. I also have d3 skillets. The construction is of similar quality on copper core and d3, but the copper core pans are more responsive as expected. I can't burn anything in these pans. You just turn down the heat and the pan reacts very quickly. It also has the benefit of being light and maneuverable like the d3 gear. 

My understanding is that the Demeyere pro line pans should be compared with all clad d7, not copper core even if they are both their top line. Demeyere pro line has good heat retention and heat diffusion, but is heavy. All clad copper core has good heat diffusion and is light, but poor heat retention. Your choice should depend on how you want to use the pan. I personally use cast iron or carbon steel to sear meat and so on, non stick for eggs and fish, and enameled cast iron for braise stuff. What remains is mostly veggies and acidic dishes so I picked copper core for its responsiveness and lightness. 

If you don't mind not being able to use your pans on induction and having to polish from time to time, bimetal copper should perform better than anything copper clad. The Falk Copper Core line looks pretty amazing though with about double the copper thickness of all clad's copper core and almost as much copper as 2.5mm bimetal copper. Super expensive though compared to all clad's copper core line that you can easily find on sale.


----------



## hmh

Also, forgot to add that what guided my choice between all clad copper core and demeyere pro line pans is that: all clad copper core responsiveness > demeyere pro line responsiveness


----------



## coxhaus

Yes, hmh I like what you said. It makes me feel better about my purchase. I am looking for a responsive pan. I have many Le Creuset pans which cook very well but they are just not real responsive. I feel like the disc pans are going to be along those lines. I already have that type of pan covered. I agree on the 5-quart copper core saute' pan I think it will be a good size. I already have a USA made Viking triply 3.4-quart saute' pan that I like.

I wish I would have read your response sooner. Not knowing about the copper core pan I ordered an All-Clad LTD 10-inch fry pan to try it. There was a nice one on eBay. I guess I should have waited and bought the copper core version. I will probably sell my All-Clad D5 10-inch fry pan. The D5 is ok just nothing special. I think D5 was to work with induction well which does not help me with gas.

The other plus for All-Clad over Demeyere is the warranty. All-Clad is forever and Demeyere is 30 years.


----------



## rickbern

@coxhaus herers a review of the all clad copper core that compares them directly to Falk. It’s most of the way down









All-Clad Copper Core: Is It Worth It?


All-Clad Copper Core is beautiful, durable, and functional. But is worth the higher price tag? Our detailed review will help you decide.




therationalkitchen.com


----------



## rickbern

No
Text


----------



## Nemo

rickbern said:


> @coxhaus herers a review of the all clad copper core that compares them directly to Falk. It’s most of the way down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All-Clad Copper Core: Is It Worth It?
> 
> 
> All-Clad Copper Core is beautiful, durable, and functional. But is worth the higher price tag? Our detailed review will help you decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therationalkitchen.com


From this review:


"The *configuration* of the layers in multi-ply cookware is also important. It can have internal layers of stainless (like D5) rather than internal layers of aluminum (like Demeyere Industry 5) or copper (like Copper Core).

Which do you think would heat better? The answer is the pans with aluminum and copper interiors, of course--but to know which is best, you have to know the _exact thickness_ of the layers. Copper is only better than aluminum if the layer is thick enough to provide better heating.

For people who want to comparison shop, it's frustrating that most clad stainless brands do not supply this information. This is not the case with copper cookware, which is actually priced by the millimeter--so you know _exactly_ what you're paying for and what kind of performance you're going to get.

But clad stainless cookware is, by and large, not sold that way. We don't know why, because it's every bit as important to the cookware's performance as it is for copper cookware. Perhaps it's the difference selling to professional chefs versus selling to home cooks: it's assumed that home cooks don't want or need this data.

But if you want to buy wisely, you _do_ need it."


This expresses what I find frustrating about trying to choose clad and high end aluminium and/or copper- based stainless pans.


----------



## tcmx3

Nemo said:


> From this review:
> 
> 
> "The *configuration* of the layers in multi-ply cookware is also important. It can have internal layers of stainless (like D5) rather than internal layers of aluminum (like Demeyere Industry 5) or copper (like Copper Core).
> 
> Which do you think would heat better? The answer is the pans with aluminum and copper interiors, of course--but to know which is best, you have to know the _exact thickness_ of the layers. Copper is only better than aluminum if the layer is thick enough to provide better heating.
> 
> For people who want to comparison shop, it's frustrating that most clad stainless brands do not supply this information. This is not the case with copper cookware, which is actually priced by the millimeter--so you know _exactly_ what you're paying for and what kind of performance you're going to get.
> 
> But clad stainless cookware is, by and large, not sold that way. We don't know why, because it's every bit as important to the cookware's performance as it is for copper cookware. Perhaps it's the difference selling to professional chefs versus selling to home cooks: it's assumed that home cooks don't want or need this data.
> 
> But if you want to buy wisely, you _do_ need it."
> 
> 
> This expresses what I find frustrating about trying to choose clad and high end aluminium and/or copper- based stainless pans.



are home cooks any more the target audience of stainless than copper? I have a hard time imagining anyone finding Demeyere's offerings lacking, and I have a suspicion anyway that most of the high end knives, pans, etc. we see are going into homes rather than pro kitchens. so I guess the key question is are a higher percentage of high end stainless sales to home cooks rather than professionals _when compared to copper cookware_

I think with stainless the thing is there is more than one way to accomplish things and I dont think these companies want to give up the ghost on that. Copper is copper. on a lot of copper pans the principal difference in their construction will be how thick the copper is, not how its layers are constructed/fused/etc

speculation on my part though. would be nice if we had a secret Demeyere engineer on the board somewhere who could chime in.


----------



## rickbern

tcmx3 said:


> are home cooks any more the target audience of stainless than copper? I have a hard time imagining anyone finding Demeyere's offerings lacking, and I have a suspicion anyway that most of the high end knives, pans, etc. we see are going into homes rather than pro kitchens. so I guess the key question is are a higher percentage of high end stainless sales to home cooks rather than professionals _when compared to copper cookware_
> 
> I think with stainless the thing is there is more than one way to accomplish things and I dont think these companies want to give up the ghost on that. Copper is copper. on a lot of copper pans the principal difference in their construction will be how thick the copper is, not how its layers are constructed/fused/etc
> 
> speculation on my part though. would be nice if we had a secret Demeyere engineer on the board somewhere who could chime in.


Here’s a similarly in depth analysis of demeyere. As you can tell, I value this site’s opinions a lot. 









All-Clad Vs. Demeyere: Which Is Better?


Looking to get top-of-the-line cookware? All-Clad is the best known choice, but Demeyere deserves a look, too. Here we examine both premium brands in detail to help you decide. Best online info and prices guaranteed.




therationalkitchen.com





And while you’re there watch the four minute video which features your mythic demeyere engineer discussing his construction in depth.

Edit. Here’s the video


----------



## parbaked

Nemo said:


> From this review:
> 
> 
> "The *configuration* of the layers in multi-ply cookware is also important. It can have internal layers of stainless (like D5) rather than internal layers of aluminum (like Demeyere Industry 5) or copper (like Copper Core).



D5 is made from 5 alternating layers of stainless and aluminum, similar to Demeyere Industry 5.


----------



## Campbell

I vote for the Demeyere Proline. Had all Mauvial SS prior to the Demeyere, and the Demeyere is far superior in my opinion. The surface of the steel is less prone to staining and the bottoms are significantly thicker and resistant to warping.


----------



## Luftmensch

rickbern said:


> Here’s the video



Nice video!

Phew!!! I am glad the value of the composite is discussed with relation to its intended purpose. Single material... heavy bottomed... a billion layers... Unless you know what you are looking for, the discussion is moot. I'll posit; the advantage of good materials (composite or otherwise) in cookware walls, decreases exponentially with the depth of the pan. On a skillet... there is an advantage - particularly if the walls are at shallower (even wok like) angles. Deep stockpots... not so much... There is nothing wrong with clad (or thick) walls on saucepans and stock pots - but it does not provide an advantage.


Just for fun... check @rickbern's video at 2:15..... ....... @tcmx3, @Helicon... FIGHT... FIGHT... FIGHT...


----------



## coxhaus

tcmx3 said:


> are home cooks any more the target audience of stainless than copper? I have a hard time imagining anyone finding Demeyere's offerings lacking, and I have a suspicion anyway that most of the high end knives, pans, etc. we see are going into homes rather than pro kitchens. so I guess the key question is are a higher percentage of high end stainless sales to home cooks rather than professionals _when compared to copper cookware_
> 
> I think with stainless the thing is there is more than one way to accomplish things and I dont think these companies want to give up the ghost on that. Copper is copper. on a lot of copper pans the principal difference in their construction will be how thick the copper is, not how its layers are constructed/fused/etc
> 
> speculation on my part though. would be nice if we had a secret Demeyere engineer on the board somewhere who could chime in.



From watching the review there seems to be a problem with fusing copper to stainless so they fuse copper to aluminum and then aluminum to stainless. The review says the cheap Chinses ones have bad issues with copper.


----------



## rickbern

coxhaus said:


> From watching the review there seems to be a problem with fusing copper to stainless so they fuse copper to aluminum and then aluminum to stainless. The review says the cheap Chinses ones have bad issues with copper.


Yeah, the only flaw with that argument is that matfer, mauviel and Falk all successfully fuse copper to stainless all the time. Never heard of them delaminating. 

But I think that to get the benefit of copper, 2mm thickness is kind of the minimum. The mainstream high end copper pans are all 2.3mm. The mauviel 150 series is 1.3mm and it’s performance is kind of weak, it’s mostly for display.


----------



## Nemo

Nemo said:


> I think that the Esstele clad option is called Per Sempre and it is more like the All Clad D5 in construction: a stainless cladding around a core of 2 layers of aluminium around another layer of stainless. The middle layer of stainless makes no sense to me.


Turns out that I had gotten confused about this.

Esstele Per Sempre is in fact 3 layer only (Aluminium clad in SS). So it's more like All Clad D3 in construction. There is no information provided about the thickness of each layer, though (as is indeed the case with All Clad).

Apologies for my confusion.


----------



## Luftmensch

Nemo said:


> Esstele Per Sempre is in fact 3 layer only (Aluminium clad in SS). So it's more like All Clad D3 in construction. There is no information provided about the thickness of each layer, though (as is indeed the case with All Clad).



You had the essence of it... They have exploded diagrams if you click on a product.

Per Sempre (3 layers - similar to D3):







Per vita (5 layers - Close to All Clad Copper Core):


----------



## Nemo

Luftmensch said:


> You had the essence of it... They have exploded diagrams if you click on a product.
> 
> Per Sempre (3 layers - similar to D3):
> 
> View attachment 137837
> 
> 
> Per vita (5 layers - Close to All Clad Copper Core):
> 
> View attachment 137838


I know it's just the marketing spiel, but I'm struggling to work out the difference between the aluminum layer for "fast even heating" and the copper layer for "superior heat distribution".

Also trying to work out why the aluminium layer on one pan causes "fast even heating" and on the other it provides "incredible heat performance".

Having said all that, I did just buy a couple of their clad saucepans (found them on special) to replace some older aluminium based SS saucepans whose handles had degraded. Despite the marketing spiel rather than because of it.


----------



## Michi

Copper has twice the heat conductivity of aluminium, meaning that, even if you heat a piece of copper in only one spot, the entire piece will be at mostly the same temperature in short order. So the claim of superior heat distribution is justified.

Aluminium has a little more than twice the heat capacity of copper. Heat capacity is essentially the number of Joules of energy you can "fit" into a given mass of the material. Intuitively, it determines how quickly a hot pan will cool down when you put something cold into it. (Cast iron has high heat capacity, which is why it's good for searing.)

The copper and aluminium combination does make sense: aluminium to allow the pan to store heat and release it as needed without cooling down too much, and copper to help distribute the heat, so there are fewer hot or cold spots.


----------



## Helicon

Nemo said:


> I know it's just the marketing spiel, but I'm struggling to work out the difference between the aluminum layer for "fast even heating" and the copper layer for "superior heat distribution".
> 
> Also trying to work out why the aluminium layer on one pan causes "fast even heating" and on the other it provides "incredible heat performance".
> 
> Having said all that, I did just buy a couple of their clad saucepans (found them on special) to replace some older aluminium based SS saucepans whose handles had degraded. Despite the marketing spiel rather than because of it.


This is the best primer on cookware materials I've read, and does an outstanding job explaining the physics behind it all: Understanding Stovetop Cookware


----------



## Nemo

Helicon said:


> This is the best primer on cookware materials I've read, and does an outstanding job explaining the physics behind it all: Understanding Stovetop Cookware


I did find this a week or two ago and I agree that it gives a very good introduction to the materials and physical science behind stovetop cookware. Well worth a read.

Just in case it wasn't clear, when I said "I'm struggling to work out the difference...", I was making an ironic comment about the marketing spiel, not a serious comment on my actual level of understanding.


----------



## Nemo

Michi said:


> Copper has twice the heat conductivity of aluminium, meaning that, even if you heat a piece of copper in only one spot, the entire piece will be at mostly the same temperature in short order. So the claim of superior heat distribution is justified.
> 
> Aluminium has a little more than twice the heat capacity of copper. Heat capacity is essentially the number of Joules of energy you can "fit" into a given mass of the material. Intuitively, it determines how quickly a hot pan will cool down when you put something cold into it. (Cast iron has high heat capacity, which is why it's good for searing.)
> 
> The copper and aluminium combination does make sense: aluminium to allow the pan to store heat and release it as needed without cooling down too much, and copper to help distribute the heat, so there are fewer hot or cold spots.


I'm no engineer. However, to me, it seems more complex than this.

If you are an engineer, or even an interested mathematician (or even if you just happen to know what you are talking about) and you can see that I've got this wrong or missed something, please explain it to me.

The units in the denominator are different in conductivity (uses m in the denominator) and heat capacity (uses kg in the denominator). This is important because Cu is over 3 times as dense as Al.

Conductivity is measured in W/mK. The density of copper is over triple that of aluminium, so 1m of Cu has triple the mass of 1m of Al. So the W/kgK should tip slightly the other way (in favour of Aluminum).

The heat capacity (j/kgK) of Al is around 2.5 times higher than Cu but because of the density disparity, Cu should have more heat capacity per volume.

Engineers have worked out a property called thermal diffusivity. It’s measured in m^2/s and describes how quickly heat spreads throughout a material (I assume taking in to account both conductivity and heat capacity). Cu is only 20% higher than Al (120 vs 100 x 10^-6 m^2/s). I'm assuming that this means that Cu is only slightly better at diffusing heat?


----------



## Luftmensch

Nemo said:


> I know it's just the marketing spiel, but I'm struggling to work out the difference between the aluminum layer for "fast even heating" and the copper layer for "superior heat distribution".





Nemo said:


> Just in case it wasn't clear, when I said "I'm struggling to work out the difference...", I was making an ironic comment about the marketing spiel, not a serious comment on my actual level of understanding.





The one thing none of them will put in the marketing spiel is: "because aluminium is cheaper"

Copper is becoming an increasingly expensive material. New high yielding mines (cheap & easy to run) are becoming increasingly scarce. It is debated how much is left - check out "peak copper". One thing is for sure... the digital revolution and a transition to a renewable future will require more copper - so I doubt it will get any cheaper.

If you are happy to trust RioTinto's word (and they should know):



> Aluminum is the third most abundant element in the earth's crust after oxygen and silicon and accounts for 8% of its composition by weight. It is the most common metal on earth, 800 times more common than copper, which has been used for thousands of years.



Aluminium's relative abundance compared to copper makes it a cheaper material to use. Given that it is a close runner-up to copper in terms of thermal performance, using aluminium could be seen as a cheap and effective substitute for copper.

I like the idea of copper cookware for its beauty. I would like to try it one day... but I suspect it is not a transformative experience. Modern design can offer compelling alternatives. The role and appeal of copper is rooted in history - it is an easy metal to work with: melting, forming and polishing. Humanity has been working with copper for hundreds of years. "Mass production" copper cookware is probably 200ish years old. Marketing can appeal to this... if your grandparents used copper cookware because there were less alternatives, that background familiarity can influence your perception of quality. I also think that copper's history of workability and aesthetics have made it a cousin of the precious metals. Semi-precious, if you will! Again, that can influence your thinking.

Smelting aluminium requires a lot of technology - i believe it only really hit the consumer market around the 1950's. So there is not much of a commonly shared nostalgia or romance for it. Ironically... because it is so difficult to produce, it used to be considered precious!!




Nemo said:


> Engineers have worked out a property called thermal diffusivity. It’s measured in m^2/s and describes how quickly heat spreads throughout a material (I assume taking in to account both conductivity and heat capacity). Cu is only 20% higher than Al (120 vs 100 x 10^-6 m^2/s). I'm assuming that this means that Cu is only slightly better at diffusing heat?



Pretty much.... If you measure them by thermal diffusivity, they are very close. Wikipedia has them even closer than your numbers (Cu 111 : Al 97)... Although I am sure there are more authoritative numbers, they are probably in the same ballpark. I doubt the difference is meaningful.

Like you noted, copper is much denser - it can soak up more heat. For a given volume of pan material (same dimensions), the copper pan will be heavier than the aluminium pan and also store more heat. They will transfer or spread heat approximately equally. Copper pan enthusiasts seem to imply old 3-4mm pans cook a bit like cast iron, given how much heat they can soak up. When I read that, i thought it was interesting... Our modern reference point for 'copper pans' is largely based on <2.5mm designs. Clearly designs with a thin sheets are going to act differently to a 3.5mm behemoth!





Nemo said:


> Having said all that, I did just buy a couple of their clad saucepans (found them on special) to replace some older aluminium based SS saucepans whose handles had degraded. Despite the marketing spiel rather than because of it.



I am sure you will enjoy them! They are good stuff 




Given all this talk... I have given serious consideration to building a backyard smelt and casting a copper frying pan


----------



## rickbern

Nemo said:


> I'm no engineer. However, to me, it seems more complex than this.
> 
> If you are an engineer, or even an interested mathematician (or even if you just happen to know what you are talking about) and you can see that I've got this wrong or missed something, please explain it to me.
> 
> The units in the denominator are different in conductivity (uses m interface denominator) and heat capacity (uses kg in the denominator). This is important because Cu is over 3 times as dense as Al.
> 
> Conductivity is measured in W/mK. The density of copper is over triple that of aluminium, so 1m of Cu has triple the mass of 1m of Al. So the W/kgK should tip slightly the other way (in favour of Aluminum).
> 
> The heat capacity (j/kgK) of Al is around 2.5 times higher than Cu but because of the density disparity, Cu should have more heat capacity per volume.
> 
> Engineers have worked out a property called thermal diffusivity. It’s measured in m^2/s and describes how quickly heat spreads throughout a material (I assume taking in to account both conductivity and heat capacity). Cu is only 20% higher than Al (120 vs 100 x 10^-6 m^2/s). I'm assuming that this means that Cu is only slightly better at diffusing heat?


Nemo, I don't know the math at all, and I'm not even sure that I use the proper term, but I think the the diffusion of heat that copper is prized for has more to do with the THICKNESS of the material rather than the weight. When the rule of thumb that Michi quoted was that 2.3 mm of copper would be equivalent to 4.6 mm of aluminum, the comparison is with thickness not mass. Nobody quotes weight of a particular material.

This makes sense to me as a cook and it's born out in practice. Thicker copper pans are way better than thinner one. They happen to weigh more, that's just an unavoidable consequence.

Hope I'm not being dreadfully simplistic here!


----------



## Luftmensch

rickbern said:


> Thicker copper pans are way better than thinner one. They happen to weigh more, that's just an unavoidable consequence.



... I'd say your practical experience is more valuable than my armchair opinion 

That said , all this copper talk got me hot under the collar so I started sifting around the internet undergrowth. I agree with the thicker comment! The remark that piqued my interest recently was on chowhound:



> Like so much about cookware, we are limited by what is available in the retail market, and what was made earlier. For instance, we would hear a lot less of the old canard that cast iron "holds more heat" if 4mm copper pans were available. And if they were, there would be a lot less raving over thick aluminum disk pans' evenness., and a better understanding of the interplay between responsiveness and heat retention.



That comment resonated with "the math": While :


MetalDensity (g/cm3) [source]Specific heat capacity (J/g °C) [source]Thermal diffusivity (mm2/s) [source]Aluminium2.700.8997Copper8.960.385111Iron7.860.45023

Copper is dense stuff... more than iron! While it stores _less_ heat per _gram_ than iron... it has more _grams_ per unit volume than iron. Multiply density and specific heat capacity and iron and copper look pretty much the same. They can both store a very similar amount of heat per volume of material (iron has a very slight advantage). But look at the thermal diffusivity! Heat moves almost 5x faster through copper than iron!

While aluminium spreads heat about as fast as copper... it stores about 1.5x less heat per volume than copper/iron.

If you want 'fast' cast iron... get the thickest copper you can!




Luftmensch said:


> Given all this talk... I have given serious consideration to building a backyard smelt and casting a copper frying pan



I drafted a solid model for a thick walled skillet. 200mm cooking surface. 300mm outer diameter at the top. 6mm base, 4mm walls. If I ever came around to doing this... I assume i'd grind away up to 1mm of the walls trying to fix the casting. It would weight about 4.4kg


----------



## Helicon

rickbern said:


> Nemo, I don't know the math at all, and I'm not even sure that I use the proper term, but I think the the diffusion of heat that copper is prized for has more to do with the THICKNESS of the material rather than the weight. When the rule of thumb that Michi quoted was that 2.3 mm of copper would be equivalent to 4.6 mm of aluminum, the comparison is with thickness not mass. Nobody quotes weight of a particular material.
> 
> This makes sense to me as a cook and it's born out in practice. Thicker copper pans are way better than thinner one. They happen to weigh more, that's just an unavoidable consequence.
> 
> Hope I'm not being dreadfully simplistic here!


The rule of thumb you cite relates to thermal conductivity alone, not heat capacity. In fact the aluminum pan in your example would have greater heat capacity, so it would work better than copper if you're adding a lot of food at once. That's why thermal diffusivity is a more useful measure of thermal performance overall. Also, specific heat tends to be calculated using the mass of a given material, which is why weight is still relevant.

Another possible downside of copper is its higher thermal effusivity, which means that it will transfer more of its heat to its surroundings (air, food, etc) more quickly than other materials. This may be advantageous if you're trying to quickly sauté some blanched veggies, such as asparagus, yet it's really not ideal for searing a thick cut of beef, such as a Bistecca alla Fiorentina. If you leave such a steak in a copper pan for long, you'll get the dreaded grey band of overcooked meat under the browned exterior. Cast iron, carbon steel, and aluminum all work much better for this.

Where copper really shines is in its responsiveness to changes in heat, particularly in the downward direction. This can be enormously helpful when cooking a delicate sauce that could break if it gets beyond a certain temp. The flipside of this responsiveness is that it's sometimes tough to dial in a perfect simmer with copper cookware, since it's so sensitive to changes in burner temperature and its surrounding environment. You probably won't be able to walk away from that pan/pot for long without making another adjustment. So again, other materials probably work better for this task.


----------



## Luftmensch

Helicon said:


> Another possible downside of copper is its higher thermal effusivity, which means that it will transfer more of its heat to its surroundings (air, food, etc) more quickly than other materials.



That is an interesting one. It seems to quantify heat "resistance" or "transfer". The commonly cited example is why metal feels colder than wood - both are room temperature but metal will 'suck' the heat from your hand faster than the wood.

There is also emissivity . Since cast iron is black and rough... i believe it has a higher emissivity than copper or aluminium - which makes it a good contender for dutch ovens (radiating heat into your bake). Maybe that doesn't matter so much if the entire environment it at temperature? Or maybe it helps brown the exterior of your bakes?


----------



## Helicon

Luftmensch said:


> That is an interesting one. It seems to quantify heat "resistance" or "transfer". The commonly cited example is why metal feels colder than wood - both are room temperature but metal will 'suck' the heat from your hand faster than the wood.
> 
> There is also emissivity . Since cast iron is black and rough... i believe it has a higher emissivity than copper or aluminium - which makes it a good contender for dutch ovens (radiating heat into your bake). Maybe that doesn't matter so much if the entire environment it at temperature? Or maybe it helps brown the exterior of your bakes?


Right, though emissivity is directly related to emission of infrared energy, which can be useful cooking certain foods – usually only in dry environments, though. Think about roasting game birds in a bare cast iron skillet in the oven, for example. 

I guess the point I'm trying to make, in case it isn't clear, is that there isn't *one* ideal material for cookware. Each material has its own set of unique advantages and disadvantages, and it's a cook's job to recognize and make the most (and the least) of these.


----------



## rickbern

Given that aluminum and cast iron react equally to acids, I’ve always wondered why nobody forms pans out of raw 12mm sheets of aluminum. There must be a reason, I just don’t know it


----------



## Helicon

rickbern said:


> Given that aluminum and cast iron react equally to acids, I’ve always wondered why nobody forms pans out of raw 12mm sheets of aluminum. There must be a reason, I just don’t know it


I don't think aluminum and cast iron do react equally to acids. At least, not in my experience. Aluminum forms a passivation layer of oxide that's very thin but can withstand mildly acidic foods cooked over several hours. Cast iron, on the other hand, never forms a protective oxide layer and interacts strongly with acids – mild and strong. Consider if you will how many Italian and Indian restaurants use bare aluminum cookware to make long-cooked tomato sauces and curries, which do not suffer from any sort of metallic off flavors. Then try cooking a batch of chili con carne in bare cast iron (don't do this, really).

As for why no one makes that sort of thick aluminum cookware, it's probably about the weight, actually. Even aluminum gets pretty heavy if there's enough of it. I have a few Agnelli pans that are 10 mm thick along the bottom and 5 mm along the sidewalls, and they're fairly substantial. 12 mm of straight aluminum would weigh as much as ~3.6 mm of copper, which would give your forearm a workout for sure.


----------



## coxhaus

rickbern said:


> Given that aluminum and cast iron react equally to acids, I’ve always wondered why nobody forms pans out of raw 12mm sheets of aluminum. There must be a reason, I just don’t know it



There was thick aluminum cookware back 50 years ago. I think cooking in aluminum was linked to Alzheimer's disease so everybody quit using it. Magnalite is the cookware I am thinking about. You can find it on eBay.


----------



## Helicon

coxhaus said:


> I think cooking in aluminum was linked to Alzheimer's disease so everybody quit using it.


It's never been definitively linked to Alzheimer's, but there were suspicions for long enough that lots of people got scared and stopped using it. That doesn't mean it isn't widely used in professional kitchens, though, and has been for decades. Plus, plenty of people continue to use hard anodized aluminum cookware such as Calphalon. 

There was some amazing heavy aluminum cookware produced back in the 1930-40s, as well, called Guardian Service. Lots on eBay and elsewhere. My favorite stuff from that era is cast aluminum (not as soft or easily dented). The only cast aluminum cookware I'm aware of that's produced these days is from Woll (and NordicWare), who make almost exclusively cast aluminum nonstick.


----------



## coxhaus

Does heavy aluminum brown as well as cast iron? Like in the oven?


----------



## Michi

Nemo said:


> Engineers have worked out a property called thermal diffusivity. It’s measured in m^2/s and describes how quickly heat spreads throughout a material (I assume taking in to account both conductivity and heat capacity). Cu is only 20% higher than Al (120 vs 100 x 10^-6 m^2/s). I'm assuming that this means that Cu is only slightly better at diffusing heat?


I think that makes sense, yes. I expect that part of the problem is cost. Aluminium is a lot cheaper. Adding that copper disk probably strikes a trade-off where cost and performance still make sense.

Or, possibly, there is not that much advantage to the sandwiched copper, and it's partly just marketing?

When I was a student in the eighties, I cooked with aluminium pots and pans (well, actually, exactly one of each) because that was all I could afford. It worked, and I didn't notice any metallic flavours.


----------



## Nemo

Michi said:


> I think that makes sense, yes. I expect that part of the problem is cost. Aluminium is a lot cheaper. Adding that copper disk probably strikes a trade-off where cost and performance still make sense.
> 
> Or, possibly, there is not that much advantage to the sandwiched copper, and it's partly just marketing?
> 
> When I was a student in the eighties, I cooked with aluminium pots and pans (well, actually, exactly one of each) because that was all I could afford. It worked, and I didn't notice any metallic flavours.


I also suspect that Cu is used in these clad pans because of a combination of it's marketing cachet (tradition and the fact that it's expensive) and it's slightly superior thermal properties. I'd love to see some actual comparative testing on heat transfer and responsiveness to show if there was actually any significant difference between Cu clad, Al clad or combinations of Cu and Al.

I remember the bare Al pots and pans in the 80s. I have read that Al is only reactive in strong alkali or long dwell times in very strong acid. Bare Cu seems to be much more reactive. The upshot is that I'm unclear whether Al poisoning is a significant problem in the real world but I am taking a precautionary approach. OTOH, it is pretty clear that the PFOA based coatings that were originally used to solve the Al toxicity issue are a problem.

Anodised Al is an interesting solution but I don't think it very durable.


----------



## Michi

Nemo said:


> The upshot is that I'm unclear whether Al poisoning is a significant problem in the real world but I am taking a precautionary approach.


The consensus seems to be that it's not a concern. Any modern kitchen will have very few aluminium cooking implements anyway. For me, the only things I can think of are a meat tenderiser (which gets used maybe once a year), and the (fairly rare) times when I use al foil to cover some food. The water that comes out of my tap is probably a lot more toxic than anything I do with aluminium.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

I cast ultra high-purity copper and aluminum for a living. I hate math though so I will offer you this, in comparison to other common metals, aluminum heats up and cools down extremely quickly whereas copper is much slower to do both. Copper is indeed denser than aluminum so you get more punch out of less material. Copper will hold the heat and radiate it across its mass. Aluminum will respond faster. So the aluminum helps heat up the copper and the copper helps the pan hold heat while the stainless makes it all a nice resilient package. I know that's all already common knowledge but it seems to be getting dissected to a very fine degree. You can dig into emissivity, diffusion, etc. all you want, but that is just the practical reality.

The reason companies do what they do isn't marketing hype, it's what works, makes sense, and is widely sellable.

Someone said some time back, it's all about what you want the pan to do and that is correct.

I do not in any way buy into the "aluminum is dangerous" notion but to each their own.

DISCLAIMER: I cook on a coil stove predominantly with stainless clad and carbon steel so what do I know?


----------



## tcmx3

Nemo said:


> I also suspect that Cu is used in these clad pans because of a combination of it's marketing cachet (tradition and the fact that it's expensive) and it's slightly superior thermal properties.* I'd love to see some actual comparative testing on heat transfer and responsiveness to show if there was actually any significant difference between Cu clad, Al clad or combinations of Cu and Al.*
> 
> I remember the bare Al pots and pans in the 80s. I have read that Al is only reactive in strong alkali or long dwell times in very strong acid. Bare Cu seems to be much more reactive. The upshot is that I'm unclear whether Al poisoning is a significant problem in the real world but I am taking a precautionary approach. OTOH, it is pretty clear that the PFOA based coatings that were originally used to solve the Al toxicity issue are a problem.
> 
> Anodised Al is an interesting solution but I don't think it very durable.



this is something. not authoritative, of course, but interesting nonetheless






Cookware Even Heating Rankings (Induction and Electric Coil, Radiant, and Halogen)







www.centurylife.org


----------



## M1k3

coxhaus said:


> Does heavy aluminum brown as well as cast iron? Like in the oven?


Not quite as easily as cast iron but yes it does. The thicker/heavier, the better.


----------



## Helicon

HumbleHomeCook said:


> aluminum heats up and cools down extremely quickly whereas copper is much slower to do both. Copper will hold the heat and radiate it across its mass. Aluminum will respond faster.


You have them backwards. Aluminum retains heat longer and responds more slowly than copper, all other things being equal. But you have to make sure other things *are* equal.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

Helicon said:


> You have them backwards. Aluminum retains heat longer and responds more slowly than copper, all other things being equal. But you have to make sure other things *are* equal.



Agreed. As you said, so long as all things are equal.


----------



## Jovidah

rickbern said:


> Given that aluminum and cast iron react equally to acids, I’ve always wondered why nobody forms pans out of raw 12mm sheets of aluminum. There must be a reason, I just don’t know it


Main reason they're out of vogue: it won't work on induction. Hence the rising popularity of clad pans, and why disk bottoms always have a slab of 18/0 on the bottom.


----------



## Helicon

Jovidah said:


> Main reason they're out of vogue: it won't work on induction. Hence the rising popularity of clad pans, and why disk bottoms always have a slab of 18/0 on the bottom.


Well, nothing that thick existed even before induction started making inroads. So, it's still probably a combination of factors, including perceived lack of demand as well as the higher cost of tooling & equipment upkeep. 

Besides, what would be the advantage of having 12 mm thick aluminum cookware? It's hard to think of any. 

Interestingly, however, there is some induction-capable bare aluminum cookware made by Ballarini and Agnelli these days. They just affix a thin interface disc along the bottom.


----------



## Jovidah

Helicon said:


> Interestingly, however, there is some induction-capable bare aluminum cookware made by Ballarini and Agnelli these days. They just affix a thin interface disc along the bottom.


Never saw those here without any teflon coating, so I have a feeling the demand just isn't really there anymore. It's a shame because from a thermal perspective those fat aluminium pans are actually quite nice.


----------



## Helicon

Jovidah said:


> Never saw those here without any teflon coating, so I have a feeling the demand just isn't really there anymore. It's a shame because from a thermal perspective those fat aluminium pans are actually quite nice.


Yes, they're not available in shops outside Italy that I've seen, but you can source them occasionally on Amazon Italy and a few other websites:






Serie 6800, Ballarini Professionale







www.ballariniprofessionale.it




and





Alluminio 3mm Induzione - Pentole Agnelli







www.pentoleagnelli.it


----------



## Jovidah

Interesting. I think I actually have some housebrand pan that's made by them... looks the exact same but teflon coated. From a thermal perspective it's a really great pan.


----------



## Chips

I should have taken some before and after photos. My barely used Matfer pan taco-d something crazy and barely made contact with my burner, spinning like a top. I just used a metal ruler to see the convexity on the bottom and beat the hell out of it with a nylon mallet. It's now sitting flat (-er), but I might be in this boat again since its an electric coil stove and the base of the pan is a good inch and a half wider than the largest element. All of this, even with pre-heating slowly before bringing it up to high heat.

I'm going to be irked if I have to keep doing this. So will my neighbors from the noise.


----------



## Luftmensch

Michi said:


> The water that comes out of my tap is probably a lot more toxic than anything I do with aluminium.



Is that because you secretly suspect it is poo? Sorry!! I couldn't leave that one open ... I know you aren't in Poowoomba!!

... Seriously though... parts of Australia really have to consider that sort of thing - indeed, some are setting a high bar. Now back to pans!!


----------



## Luftmensch

Helicon said:


> Right, though emissivity is directly related to emission of infrared energy, which can be useful cooking certain foods – usually only in dry environments, though. Think about roasting game birds in a bare cast iron skillet in the oven, for example.



True; water vapour will _attenuate_ IR. But in the short distances of a dutch oven, I am sure plenty of IR is bouncing around even if it is humid.



Helicon said:


> I guess the point I'm trying to make, in case it isn't clear, is that there isn't *one* ideal material for cookware. Each material has its own set of unique advantages and disadvantages, and it's a cook's job to recognize and make the most (and the least) of these.



Oh for sure. No arguments there!


----------



## coxhaus

I have been cooking on my new All-Clad copper core 5 qt sauté' pan and I like it. It seems to be reactive enough that if the flame is too high or low you can tell right off. With my old silver disc pan if I got the flame to high by the time, I knew it and turned it down the pan was way too hot. When I turned the silver disc pan down it took too long to react.


----------



## Nemo

Helicon said:


> If he's just looking for an upgrade from All-Clad, I'd be inclined to recommend Demeyere Industry5 or Proline. They both have much more conductive material than All-Clad, plus more comfortable handles, etc. If he doesn't care about conductive sidewalls, then he should look at thick aluminum disc pans from Sitram or Paderno (aka Vollrath Centurion), Fissler etc. Some of the Paderno models have about 6-7 mm of aluminum in their bases, which means they're more even-heating than copper and have more heat retention, too. Those are the attributes that truly matter in a skillet.



I've been trying to work out what sort of cooking/ food should make me want a clad skillet instead of a thick aluminum disc-ed skillet. Any ponters?


----------



## rickbern

Nemo said:


> I've been trying to work out what sort of cooking/ food should make me want a clad skillet instead of a thick aluminum disc-ed skillet. Any ponters?


I think it’s mostly the geometry of the pan. I agree with the demeyere philosophy that skillets are best clad with conductive sidewalls while sauté pans, rondeaus and Dutch ovens are best with thick disk bases.

Except when they’re thick copper, thick copper pots are always wonderful.


----------



## rickbern

Nemo said:


> I've been trying to work out what sort of cooking/ food should make me want a clad skillet instead of a thick aluminum disc-ed skillet. Any ponters?


Nemo, here’s a comprehensive review of a disk based skillet. I don’t like these on gas because the flame licks up the side and burns the food but I liked them better than clad on an electric coil stove






In-Depth Product Review: Paderno World Cuisine aka Paderno Grand Gourmet (Series 1100 / Series 2100) 11-inch paella pan / skillet / frying pan







www.centurylife.org


----------



## Nemo

rickbern said:


> Nemo, here’s a comprehensive review of a disk based skillet. I don’t like these on gas because the flame licks up the side and burns the food but I liked them better than clad on an electric coil stove
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In-Depth Product Review: Paderno World Cuisine aka Paderno Grand Gourmet (Series 1100 / Series 2100) 11-inch paella pan / skillet / frying pan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.centurylife.org


Thanks for the link. It looks like they are saying one issue with these is that the very edge of the base doesn't get as much heat unless the disc goes all the way to the edge.


----------



## Helicon

Nemo said:


> I've been trying to work out what sort of cooking/ food should make me want a clad skillet instead of a thick aluminum disc-ed skillet. Any ponters?


Basically stuff that's going to be very quick cooking, light or thin – a veggie or mushroom sauté, chicken or veal scallopini, etc. Ideally you'd have pre-blanched the veg and are just sautéing to give them color. The heated sidewalls will make mushroom sticking less of a concern. Such skillets are usually lighter weight and so easier to toss food in, if that's your thing.

But in general, for the sorts of things I use them to make, I prefer aluminum disc-based skillets.


----------



## Helicon

Nemo said:


> Thanks for the link. It looks like they are saying one issue with these is that the very edge of the base doesn't get as much heat unless the disc goes all the way to the edge.


This concern is pretty overblown, in my experience. On a gas cooktop, unless you're really blasting that perimeter (without the disc) on a super wide burner, you won't have problems. On electric or induction, it does stay marginally cooler, but it's not been a problem with anything I've cooked. Usually that area is only about 1 cm wide, often less.


----------



## rickbern

Nemo said:


> Thanks for the link. It looks like they are saying one issue with these is that the very edge of the base doesn't get as much heat unless the disc goes all the way to the edge.


Exactly. That’s what demeyere, fissler and paderno grand gourmet do with their sauté pans, the disks go right to the edge. Kinda impossible to do with any sort of gradually sloping skillet. 

The shape of the pan and the type of heat source you’re using determines your choices probably more so than what you’re cooking in it


----------



## coxhaus

Nemo maybe try both and decide for yourself. I tried a disc based 12-inch fry pan on my Viking gas range and I hated it. I tried an All-Clad D5 and it was better than my old disc pan. But I like the All-Clad copper core even better than the D5. Since you have gas, I would not recommend the AC D5. I had one of those and I really liked the copper core better. I sold my D5. I read the AC D5 works well on induction but I don't have induction so I have no way to tell. I have lots of old Le Creuset pans and pots that I can fall back on if I have a hankering. I just like the fast reaction time on the All-Clad right now and it seems to cook fine for me on my Viking range. The pans are also very light but cook even for me. This is what I discovered cooking at home. There may be some good prices on used All-Clad D3 right now. This would give you a cheap way to try it.

I liked my All-Clad copper core so much on my range I bought a 5 qt sauté' pan the one I started with, a 12-inch fry pan, and a 7-piece copper core set so I could have the 8 qt stock pot. This site has cost me some money over the last year. But it has also taught me a lot. I think I am a better cook now.


----------



## coxhaus

I have an old Viking triply 3.4 qt sauté' pan made in the USA. It is label on the bottom made in the USA. I like it. I really like the size and shape. I assume All-Clad made it for them. Does anybody know?
It seems a little heavier than my All-Clad pans. I have a copper core 3 qt arriving today to really compare to. It is in my set arriving today. I think my copper core has a more even cooking than my Viking pan so I like the copper core better. When cooking onions in oil I get a few going brown quicker so they are not as uniform when cooking as my copper core 5 qt.


----------



## coxhaus

Just read a review of the best induction cookware sets for 2021. It gave me a good laugh. The top 2 are China made. The best All-Clad is China made. Guess I know where funding is coming from.


----------



## M1k3

coxhaus said:


> Just read a review of the best induction cookware sets for 2021. It gave me a good laugh. The top 2 are China made. The best All-Clad is China made. Guess I know where funding is coming from.


Advertisers? All-clad?


----------



## spaceconvoy

Anyone notice how most of the top knife makers are Japanese?! I blame the emperor


----------



## coxhaus

M1k3 said:


> Advertisers? All-clad?



My guess is China is funding in some way. Or the writer doesn't know sh$$t. I don't think any of the pans being talked about here is even an option. Well All-Clad D3 is down toward the bottom.


----------



## M1k3

coxhaus said:


> My guess is China is funding in some way. Or the writer doesn't know sh$$t.


My money would be on All-Clad or hired marketing company contacting the reviewer and saying "For a quality review, would you like some free stuff and a small stipend? "


----------



## coxhaus

M1k3 said:


> My money would be on All-Clad or hired marketing company contacting the reviewer and saying "For a quality review, would you like some free stuff and a small stipend? "



But All-Clad was not rated very high and the China made was rated higher than the USA made.


----------



## M1k3

coxhaus said:


> But All-Clad was not rated very high and the China made was rated higher than the USA made.


----------



## tcmx3

coxhaus said:


> My guess is China is funding in some way. Or the writer doesn't know sh$$t. I don't think any of the pans being talked about here is even an option. Well All-Clad D3 is down toward the bottom.



yeah man the communist party of China is waging a broad sweeping campaign to influence irrelevant online reviews to get Americans to buy Chinese goods, because we dont buy enough of them already.


----------



## Jovidah

There's a lot of these fake review sites floating around. Some might simply be written and paid advertising done by a manufacturer...others are made by shills who don't care about anything as long as they get proceeds from the clicks. As long as it isn't a known and trusted source I'm inclined to just outright ignore it these days.
Even with the more trusted sources there's usually a problem: bias of omission. There's only so many products they can test, so often a lot of interesting ones get left out.


----------



## Pensfan

I'm not a cookware expert by any means. However my All-Clad has never let me down with induction or electric. I've not had a gas stovetop in over 20 years (dying more each second from it).

What are you looking for that is beyond the All-Clad's ability /performance?


----------



## Noodle

I bought one of those Darto pans mentioned earlier b/c I’ve always wanted to try carbon steel. Will post some pics and impressions if people are interested.


----------



## tally-ho

Helicon said:


> Well, nothing that thick existed even before induction started making inroads. So, it's still probably a combination of factors, including perceived lack of demand as well as the higher cost of tooling & equipment upkeep.


In Europe raw aluminum steamers were common in the 80's, lighter and cheaper than stainless steel but actually the main factor about aluminum (and aluminum oxide that inevitably develops on cookware) is health concern, hence nowadays there is rarely aluminum cookware without an internal coating.


----------



## tally-ho

Michi said:


> Aluminium has a little more than twice the heat capacity of copper. Heat capacity is essentially the number of Joules of energy you can "fit" into a given mass of the material. Intuitively, it determines how quickly a hot pan will cool down when you put something cold into it. (Cast iron has high heat capacity, which is why it's good for searing.)


I heard several times elsewhere that copper has a greater thermal mass than aluminum so I made a quick research about it and one thing to note though, if I understand it well, is that it depends if you consider the massic heat capacity or the molar heat capacity.
A cube of the same weight of aluminum and copper are not the same size, the aluminum piece is twice as big, heat will take more time to evacuate from the center to the edge via conduction (given the thermal conductivity of aluminum). Massic heat capacity (J/g °C) for aluminum is 0.9 and for copper is 0.39.
Now if you consider a piece of aluminum and copper of the same size, your comparing them based on the molar heat capacity unit (J/mol °C), aluminum is 2.4 and copper 2.47.
A disc of aluminum and a disc of copper of the same radius and thickness seem to have the same heat capacity.

EDIT : I think that I got this part wrong.


----------



## Luftmensch

@tally-ho,

You and I have the same numbers for (massic) heat capacity. See post #468:



Luftmensch said:


> MetalDensity (g/cm3) [source]Specific heat capacity (J/g °C) [source]Thermal diffusivity (mm2/s) [source]Aluminium2.700.8997Copper8.960.385111Iron7.860.45023
> 
> Copper is dense stuff... more than iron! While it stores _less_ heat per _gram_ than iron... it has more _grams_ per unit volume than iron. Multiply density and specific heat capacity and iron and copper look pretty much the same. They can both store a very similar amount of heat per volume of material (iron has a very slight advantage). But look at the thermal diffusivity! Heat moves almost 5x faster through copper than iron!
> 
> While aluminium spreads heat about as fast as copper... it stores about 1.5x less heat per volume than copper/iron.
> 
> If you want 'fast' cast iron... get the thickest copper you can!







tally-ho said:


> A cube of the same weight of aluminum and copper are not the same size, the aluminum piece is twice as big



If you are talking about equivalent mass; I have copper being 3.3x more _dense_ than aluminium. So for a cube of copper and a cube of aluminium to have the same weight, the aluminium will need to have 3.3x more _volume_. The volume of a cube is... the cube of its side... ()! So to equalise the mass, we need the aluminium cube to be 3.3^(1÷3) ~= 1.5x bigger on all sides...

I also included thermal diffusivity (conductivity)... I am going to assert that for all human intents and purposes... aluminium and copper will be perceived as having identical diffusivity. If we are talking about cubes of equivalent dimensions (_volume_), copper and aluminium cubes share the same time for heat to conduct from one face to the opposite. But in this scenario the aluminium will store less heat energy. If we are talking about the same _mass_ of material, since the aluminium cube is 1.5x bigger on each side, the heat has to travel 1.5x further... so it will feel 'slower' than the copper cube.



tally-ho said:


> A disc of aluminum and a disc of copper of the same radius and thickness seem to have the same heat capacity.



Be careful not to confuse (massic) heat capacity (J/g °C) with heat energy stored _per volume_ (J/cm3 °C). 

If you are talking about discs with the same dimensions, they will have identical _volumes_. Not _mass_. Nor heat energy stored. From the table above, copper stores 3.4 J/cm3 °C whereas aluminum only stores 2.4 J/cm3 °C. Since copper stores approximately 3.4÷2.4 ~= 1.4x more heat energy per volume than aluminium, to equalise the heat energy.... same math as before.... the aluminium cube needs to be 1.4^(1÷3) ~= 1.1x bigger on all sides. In this scenario the cubes ought to store the same amount of heat but now they do not share the same volume or mass....

I think I got that right??!  I'd be happy for somebody to math/science/engineer review me


----------



## M1k3

Luftmensch said:


> I think I got that right??!  I'd be happy for somebody to math/science/engineer review me


@ian


----------



## deskjockey

Sort of related but, right now my "*High-End Frying Pan*" of the moment is a *12" Stargazer *cast iron skillet.

Its much more vertical sides (compared to my other cast iron options) really reduces splatter when I fry bacon or an egg or two but, it is harder to use with something like a pancake.

The thinner sidewalls with a heavy base really make this the best handling cast iron skillet I have. The handle is shaped similar to the All-Clad handles I dislike but, the 'oval' bottom is much wider and rounder, and the top is wide enough to rest a spoon or spatula. Its greater overall width makes it easier to tip and dump bacon grease and doesn't dig into my hand or fingers when it is loaded with food. It simply handles better than my other cast iron skillet options with its superior handle and the excellent balance it has.


----------



## ian

M1k3 said:


> @ian



TLDR


----------



## M1k3

ian said:


> TLDR


@u


----------



## Luftmensch

ian said:


> TLDR



**

But it contains low dimensional topologies....




** I acknowledge I occupy a niche that writes posts that are often too long for anybody to bother....


----------



## sansho

the term i'm familiar with is specific heat, not massic. is it massic in french?

edit: i see it's capacité thermique massique. cool


----------



## ian

Luftmensch said:


> **
> 
> But it contains low dimensional topologies....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** I acknowledge I occupy a niche that writes posts that are often too long for anybody to bother....




I like the fighting kangaroos!

Your other post seemed fine to me on a quick read. Idk much about the physics, though, so I’m not sure something would jump out at me if it was wrong.


----------



## rmrf

Luftmensch said:


> **
> 
> ** I acknowledge I occupy a niche that writes posts that are often too long for anybody to bother....


Hold my beer....

It didn't look wrong to me but I hate numbers. The general principle that you need less mass of Al to store the same heat energy as Cu seemed right. Al is less dense so you need more volume I think is right. 

I have mixed feelings about thermal diffusivity. On one hand, it seems like the best metric to use when comparing pan materials. However, I don't really care about pan materials, I care about the heat map of a pan (temperature over the surface of the pan) given a non-uniform heat source (gas burner, induction heating, etc) at various times and with and without a heat sink on top (like a steak). In particular:

How large the max difference between hot and cold spots in steady state with no heat sink?
How many seconds does it take for that amplitude to drop below some X degrees?
How much energy can be released into the heat sink (steak) when it is added to the pan in 30 seconds? 
When the pan is removed from the heat source, how long does it take to cool? (This probably is answerable from just composition and total mass)
I suspect that the answer to those questions requires a 3D heat simulation. 

I remember trying to do a back-of-the-envelope 2D model of a pan by pretending it was a bar, holding one side at constant temperature and looking at the temperature at the other side. Then, asking how thick a bar of Al would need to be to have the same cold-side temperature as a bar of Cu. This gives you a rough estimate of how thick an Al pan needs to be to have the same thermal conductivity as a Cu pan. 

To me, this made more sense for fry pans compared to thermal diffusivity. Based on how people measure thermal diffusivity, however, I suspect these are the same metrics...  So I guess I'm saying that I want something better than the stupidest 2D approximation to the 3D question.

The real question is why can't I find a paper that does exactly this. I want to know how thick copper I need to get to be better than demeyere skillets and if I could lift it


----------



## tally-ho

Luftmensch said:


> **


I appreciated that you did the maths for me with more appropriate units and orders of magnitudes. I always prefer detailed explanations over "simplified" ideas particularly with physics.


----------



## coxhaus

It seems to me you are saying copper cools quicker than aluminum? Which is what I want on my gas stove. I want to be able to control or fine tune my gas stove to my pan. So, I want a responsive pan. I don't want a pan that holds heat on a gas stove.


----------



## tcmx3

coxhaus said:


> It seems to me you are saying copper cools quicker than aluminum? Which is what I want on my gas stove. I want to be able to control or fine tune my gas stove to my pan. So, I want a responsive pan. I don't want a pan that holds heat on a gas stove.



depends on the type of pan IMO

saucepan, absolutely agree. fry pan? Id rather it move fairly slowly.


----------



## ptolemy

coxhaus said:


> It seems to me you are saying copper cools quicker than aluminum? Which is what I want on my gas stove. I want to be able to control or fine tune my gas stove to my pan. So, I want a responsive pan. I don't want a pan that holds heat on a gas stove.



having copper definitely helps, as copper is 2nd most responsive to silver... and by responsive, i meant to heat up and to cool off.

so you want a pan that has 2mm+ of copper and ss on the inside... falk, mauviel, matfer, those all offer 2.5mm+ copper. or you can go with copper clad... but only few have those .. all-clad 0.9mm, certain demeyere lines/or demeyere made pans have 2mm copper as well... there are few other, i heard of, but i don't know exactly...


----------



## Michi

Mauviel no longer make the 2.5 mm range. It’s 2 mm now, with the same prices as for the 2.5 mm ones.


----------



## ptolemy

Michi said:


> Mauviel no longer make the 2.5 mm range. It’s 2 mm now, with the same prices as for the 2.5 mm ones.



fair enough, but luckily you can still buy it on the 2nd hand market


----------



## tally-ho

Michi said:


> Mauviel no longer make the 2.5 mm range. It’s 2 mm now, with the same prices as for the 2.5 mm ones.


Unfortunately, over a year the price of raw copper went up by 130% between march 2020 and march 2021 to reach its all time higher price. That may explain why they "downgraded" the thickness.


----------



## Michi

tally-ho said:


> Unfortunetely, over a year the price of raw copper went up by 130% between march 2020 and march 2021 to reach its all time higher price. That may explain why they "downgraded" the thickness.


Yes, I'm sure that contributed a lot. It's no good making a great pan when no-one can afford it any longer.


----------



## coxhaus

tcmx3 said:


> depends on the type of pan IMO
> 
> saucepan, absolutely agree. fry pan? Id rather it move fairly slowly.



Yes, you are correct because I am thinking High end pan. If I just want a pan to hold heat like to sear a steak then I use a low-end Lodge cast iron pan. They work great for me.


----------



## deskjockey

coxhaus said:


> Yes, you are correct because I am thinking High end pan. If I just want a pan to hold heat like to sear a steak then I use a low-end Lodge cast iron pan. They work great for me.



Wait until you try a Stargazer skillet! Big Lodge fan myself but, that 12" Stargazer has kicked them out of the kitchen.


----------



## rmrf

coxhaus said:


> It seems to me you are saying copper cools quicker than aluminum? Which is what I want on my gas stove. I want to be able to control or fine tune my gas stove to my pan. So, I want a responsive pan. I don't want a pan that holds heat on a gas stove.


Depends on the weight of the pan. For the same weight, the copper will cool faster (Al has a higher heat capacity per gram than Cu). It turns out if you do the math for the simplest 2D approximation for how even the pans get, for similar "evenness", Cu will cool faster.

Keep in mind that the Cu pan cools faster because it has less heat capacity, not because there's something magic about Cu (i.e., the emissivity of the two pans are identical)


----------



## BillHanna

deskjockey said:


> Stargazer has kicked them out of the kitchen.


In what way?


----------



## ptolemy

deskjockey said:


> Wait until you try a Stargazer skillet! Big Lodge fan myself but, that 12" Stargazer has kicked them out of the kitchen.



I have tried a few high end cast iron skillets... and performance wise, they are all pretty much the same. Ones I tried look nicer, and sanded down nicer, but they perform just about the same.... Now, if you plan to put them on the serving table, maybe it's worth it to you... but I got my 10.25" lodge, 12" and 15" lodge all for below $20 each. I friend of mine sanded them down to 220grit (i paid for pizza and beer)... and that's it..

now, obviously, some use cases may change for others, I admit, if I had $500 to throw out, i'd get them... but these days, I maybe use cast iron pans once a week, and been a long time since I used 15" pan period, so to me, my pans will last me a life time.


----------



## tcmx3

stargazer handles are WAY better than most other cast iron, the lip is super useful, and it's just more maneuverable.

whether it's worth the money to you is personal. to me it absolutely is because I use mine all the time and it's just nicer to cook with.

my personal advice is get 1 nicer cast iron in the main size you use and then for your lower use sizes it's not as important. I know a lot of folks use theirs for camping and I probably wouldnt bother with a camping pan because like, you've already accepted youre not gonna have the creature comforts.


----------



## JayGee

I had an average cast iron skillet that I needed to completely strip and re-season. I struggled hard to remove the seasoning with vinegar / over cleaner etc. In the end I used a wire brush on my drill. Removed the seasoning quick smart, but also smoothed the surface considerably. It wasn't the plan, but this improved the performance of the pan a great deal and helped it hold a super consistent seasoning. This last step might account for the performance difference between different levels of cast iron.


----------



## deskjockey

ptolemy said:


> I have tried a few high end cast iron skillets... and performance wise, they are all pretty much the same. Ones I tried look nicer, and sanded down nicer, but they perform just about the same.... Now, if you plan to put them on the serving table, maybe it's worth it to you... but I got my 10.25" lodge, 12" and 15" lodge all for below $20 each. I friend of mine sanded them down to 220grit (i paid for pizza and beer)... and that's it..



I have all the Lodge skillets up to the 15" one and the chef's skillets with the sloped sides. They are very serviceable but, my Stargazer is simply a better skillet. Better handle, better handling, better...

Sure, you can sand a Lodge down and smooth out the rough edges and rough casting but, that won't fix the thin short hot handle or the heavy sides affecting the balance. For $12, the 10" skillet is a great value and saved me from weak pathetic stoves in various rental places but, if I knew then what I know today, I'd eat beans for a month or two to afford one.


----------



## Rangen

I am fully prepared to believe that the Stargazers are awesome. And I am not tempted by them in the least, because I have reached my cast iron nirvana, and it says Griswold on the bottom.


----------



## deskjockey

Rangen said:


> I am fully prepared to believe that the Stargazers are awesome. And I am not tempted by them in the least, because I have reached my cast iron nirvana, and it says Griswold on the bottom.



If I could have found a 12" Griswold that wasn't warped or cracked for the $145 my Stargazer cost, I'd be game to give it a try. My Griswold searches over the past three years have been fruitless because of the high prices or warped and cracked skillets on offer for what I paid for my Stargazer.


----------



## Rangen

deskjockey said:


> If I could have found a 12" Griswold that wasn't warped or cracked for the $145 my Stargazer cost, I'd be game to give it a try. My Griswold searches over the past three years have been fruitless because of the high prices or warped and cracked skillets on offer for what I paid for my Stargazer.



I did not know that things had become like that. I got my big one for about that, and a set of three smaller ones for less than that, but it was some years ago. I guess they got discovered. Unfortunate.


----------



## Luftmensch

Rangen said:


> but it was some years ago. I guess they got discovered.



There has been a pretty large revival in cast iron... a lot of the 'good' old stuff has been grabbed and the prices on ebay (etc...) have been steadily climbing over the past decade?? The collectors market has also inflated prices. You could argue that this is why companies like Stargazer exist... there is enough demand for high-quality cast iron - people are seeing it as a useful tool in the kitchen... not something antiquated their grandparents used to use....

Given how difficult it can be to find 'good' old skillets (and more difficult in younger countries), I would just buy a new fancy one and save myself the hassle/cost.



tcmx3 said:


> stargazer handles are WAY better than most other cast iron, the lip is super useful, and it's just more maneuverable.





deskjockey said:


> Sure, you can sand a Lodge down and smooth out the rough edges and rough casting but, that won't fix the thin short hot handle or the heavy sides affecting the balance



I agree with these assessments. I dont have any new, fancy cast iron. I have Lodge and I have sanded some of them down. They are _fine_ skillets. But... Their handles are short and stubby (hot).... The side walls are thick. The pouring lip is not amazing. You can't fix these issues.

I dont mind the thick walls but it adds weight. A 10" lodge skillet is manageable for me. The 12" the skillet is bordering on too heavy. I can manage it one handed when it is relatively empty. For _now_. I only imagine this will get more difficult as I age. When it is full... forget about it. Dont even mention larger sizes!




tcmx3 said:


> my personal advice is get 1 nicer cast iron in the main size you use and then for your lower use sizes it's not as important.



Given the weight issue... I would also add: the bigger your preference, the more worthwhile a 'modern' skillet may be from a handling point of view. Thick cast iron is heavy!!


----------



## cooktocut

My stargazer is amazing, and the handle can’t be beat, but my butter pat is just as good and you can buy a glass lid to go with


----------



## Rainmaker

High end fry pan: 









Solid Silver Cookware — Duparquet Copper Cookware


The ultimate cookware…? Quite likely. I have been in pursuit of the ultimate piece of cookware for years. With this iteration - I very well may have found it. Silver has the highest heat conductivity of ANY element. It’s even better than copper in this important attribute. What about Gold? No




duparquet.com


----------



## rickbern

Rainmaker said:


> High end fry pan:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solid Silver Cookware — Duparquet Copper Cookware
> 
> 
> The ultimate cookware…? Quite likely. I have been in pursuit of the ultimate piece of cookware for years. With this iteration - I very well may have found it. Silver has the highest heat conductivity of ANY element. It’s even better than copper in this important attribute. What about Gold? No
> 
> 
> 
> 
> duparquet.com


These guys are a bargain compared to the Turkish guys









GNT Series Pure Solid Silver Frying Pan


Here is one piece from Soy's most exclusive line, the Pure Solid Silver Cookware line. As Silver is the most heat-conducting metal in the Universe, you are looking at the most ideal piece of cookware on this planet. Only our Silver-Plated copper cookware can come close. These items are...




shop.soy.com.tr


----------



## deskjockey

Rangen said:


> I did not know that things had become like that. I got my big one for about that, and a set of three smaller ones for less than that, but it was some years ago. I guess they got discovered. Unfortunate.



About 3 years ago I quit my ~2 year search for a good Griswold skillet. I was on a couple of cast iron forums and got daily eBay listings but, finding one that was flat and uncracked was mission impossible.

Everyone always talked about finding the "perfect" one in a garage sale or some second-hand shop. They have been hyped up so much that today, people treat warped and cracked Griswold skillets like they are made from gold today in my experience.


----------



## deskjockey

Luftmensch said:


> I agree with these assessments. I dont have any new, fancy cast iron. I have Lodge and I have sanded some of them down. They are _fine_ skillets. But... Their handles are short and stubby (hot).... The side walls are thick. The pouring lip is not amazing. You can't fix these issues.
> 
> I dont mind the thick walls but it adds weight. A 10" lodge skillet is manageable for me. The 12" the skillet is bordering on too heavy. I can manage it one handed when it is relatively empty. For _now_. I only imagine this will get more difficult as I age. When it is full... forget about it. Dont even mention larger sizes!
> 
> Given the weight issue... I would also add: the bigger your preference, the more worthwhile a 'modern' skillet may be from a handling point of view. Thick cast iron is heavy!!



Lodge cast iron skillets as bought at Wal-Mart and similar big box retailers are a bargain in a serviceable skillet. You can do simple things to improve them like sanding the casting down but, that won't address its main weaknesses.

The hot stubby handles make handling difficult. The thick sides make handling even worse. Pouring out hot grease might work in the prairie from your covered wagon but, in my kitchen, it just makes a big mess generally.

If I find myself somewhere out and about in my travels and need a skillet, a Lodge skillet will find itself in service in my "kitchen" whether at a campsite or in a hotel kitchenette. Non-stick aluminum skillets may be cheap and carry easy but, they don't work very well on a campfire or cheap electric coil burner and they won't brown meat worth a darn or put a nice tasty crust on a steak.

Whether I buy a 10" Stargazer to put in my travel kit remains to be seen.


----------



## deskjockey

Luftmensch said:


> Given the weight issue... I would also add: the bigger your preference, the more worthwhile a 'modern' skillet may be from a handling point of view. Thick cast iron is heavy!!



Speaking from my personal experience, I can "one-hand" my 12" Stargazer much easier than I can a 10" Lodge skillet. The stress on my wrist and the control I have with the Stargazer is simply better.

As I get older and my wrists get worse, I may find myself using the HELPER HANDLE. If that's the case, the STARGAZER helper handle is significantly better. It stands out further from the skillet sides so, no burned knuckles. It is wider so, it doesn't cut into my hand. The grip itself is nice and wide so it is much easier to hold!


----------



## deskjockey

cooktocut said:


> My stargazer is amazing, and the handle can’t be beat, but my butter pat is just as good and you can buy a glass lid to go with



I looked hard at *Butter Pat *myself. I would love to hear your comparison of it and the Stargazer.


----------



## cooktocut

I prefer the butter pat. The cooking surface seems a lot more forgiving. I’ve got a harsh “stain” on my stargazer from a few uses but the butter pat seems to go back to almost the same color/finish as out of the box after some coarse salt. Obviously that could be attributed to what I cooked, but I don’t vary what I use my cast irons for very much. The one thing is the handle on the butter pat sucks. If you wrap a towel around it, it’s fantastic, and the ridges on either side on the bottom (of the handle) seem to even grip the towel better so it doesn’t slide around. On its own though it’s uncomfortable, and the stargazer handle is much nicer. I very rarely find myself grabbing the handle full on unless I’m moving it around my kitchen between uses, so it doesn’t seem to make a big enough difference for me. Butter pat is slightly better to me, but they’re both outstanding.


----------



## Pertti

cooktocut said:


> I prefer the butter pat. The cooking surface seems a lot more forgiving. I’ve got a harsh “stain” on my stargazer from a few uses but the butter pat seems to go back to almost the same color/finish as out of the box after some coarse salt. Obviously that could be attributed to what I cooked, but I don’t vary what I use my cast irons for very much. The one thing is the handle on the butter pat sucks. If you wrap a towel around it, it’s fantastic, and the ridges on either side on the bottom (of the handle) seem to even grip the towel better so it doesn’t slide around. On its own though it’s uncomfortable, and the stargazer handle is much nicer. I very rarely find myself grabbing the handle full on unless I’m moving it around my kitchen between uses, so it doesn’t seem to make a big enough difference for me. Butter pat is slightly better to me, but they’re both outstanding.



Butterpat has a thicker bottom right?


----------



## cooktocut

Pertti said:


> Butterpat has a thicker bottom right?


I’m not sure, and I have a 12 inch of one and a 10 inch of another so I’m not sure they’d compare properly.


----------



## BillHanna

I just found out stargazer is relatively local. Sounds like a perfectly stupid reason to get one.

#ShopLocal


----------



## cooktocut

I waited 8 weeks for mine


----------



## deskjockey

Thanks! Good comment on the Butter Pat handle too. Something like that is easily missed shipping online and is super helpful.


cooktocut said:


> I waited 8 weeks for mine



Mine took about 4 1/2 months due to the COVID panic buying and shortages people were doing. The Stargazer team was a great one to deal with during the long wait which was acknowledged when I ordered it.


----------



## BillHanna

Their site currently gives a six week wait for the twelve inch.


----------



## deskjockey

BillHanna said:


> Their site currently gives a six week wait for the twelve inch.



I'm thinking about a 10 inch skillet to go with my 12 inch model but, I think I will wait for the braiser.


----------



## cooktocut

I can’t overstate how nice the lid is for the butter pat. I’m 100% convinced if something were to happen to the pan, I could just flip the lid upside down, remove the knob, and cook in that


----------



## tcmx3

I waited a long time for my 12". I got my 10" very quickly.


----------



## deskjockey

tcmx3 said:


> I waited a long time for my 12". I got my 10" very quickly.



Yep, the 10" for whatever reason is in stock and ready for immediate shipping. The 12" seems to be chronically out of stock I assume because it is more popular.


----------



## deskjockey

cooktocut said:


> I can’t overstate how nice the lid is for the butter pat. I’m 100% convinced if something were to happen to the pan, I could just flip the lid upside down, remove the knob, and cook in that



I'm glad you like it so much. For me, the Butter Pat skillet and lid seem a bit over-priced considering their competition in the marketplace. They certainly appeal to a lot of people so, they have found a good place in the market.

I looked long and hard at the Butter Pat vs. Field vs. Stargazer and voted with my wallet on Stargazer which to me won out because of the perception of better handles. Now that I have used it ~6 months, I am very happy with my choice because both handles are very user friendly to me. The other two had secondary handles which I found inferior to Stargazer and the main handle was a bit of a toss up based on my prior All-Clad experience. The Stargazer is wider and more curved which I really like and, it rests a spoon or spatula exceptionally well while cooking.

Field is one brand I don't see mentioned very often that seems to compete in this marketspace. I'm not sure why. From here you get into smaller production "boutique" cookware makers which haven't appealed to me.


----------



## Luftmensch

deskjockey said:


> Field is one brand I don't see mentioned very often that seems to compete in this marketspace. I'm not sure why.



If I were in America... I would look seriously at Field. 

The one problem with these smaller companies is that their systems/range are immature. This is another advantage of Lodge. With Lodge you know you can buy a dutch oven, a skillet or a deep dish skillet of the same diameter and know that they will share a lid... I like that. I try not to be superficial... but it is also nice when your kitchen tools have the same matching styling...  

Field and Butterpat have dutch ovens and (i assume) cross-compatible lids. Stargazer need to catch up in this regard.


----------



## tcmx3

Luftmensch said:


> If I were in America... I would look seriously at Field.
> 
> The one problem with these smaller companies is that their systems/range are immature. This is another advantage of Lodge. With Lodge you know you can buy a dutch oven, a skillet or a deep dish skillet of the same diameter and know that they will share a lid... I like that. I try not to be superficial... but it is also nice when your kitchen tools have the same matching styling...
> 
> Field and Butterpat have dutch ovens and (i assume) cross-compatible lids. Stargazer need to catch up in this regard.



I use one of my all-clad lids with my Stargazer. it's not a perfect fit but it's good enough considering it's a frying pan. it's enough to steam things, just not enough to lock stuff in there


----------



## William Hunt

Anyone tried the SpringUSA carbon skillets? KaTom has the 12.5 inch for $100. I never used the product or supplier, but it looks interesting.


----------



## tomsch

I have a 10" Stargazer that I bought when they first went into production but it does not see much use as I end up using my Griswolds more frequently. I started hunting for them about five years ago and have a #3, #8, #9, #10, #12, and the big daddy #14. I also have Lodge 10" that I've had for years so the seasoning is good despite the rough surface compared to my Griswolds and Stargazer but it is good for oven work such as roasts.


----------



## deskjockey

Luftmensch said:


> If I were in America... I would look seriously at Field.
> 
> The one problem with these smaller companies is that their systems/range are immature. This is another advantage of Lodge. With Lodge you know you can buy a dutch oven, a skillet or a deep dish skillet of the same diameter and know that they will share a lid... I like that. I try not to be superficial... but it is also nice when your kitchen tools have the same matching styling...
> 
> Field and Butterpat have dutch ovens and (i assume) cross-compatible lids. Stargazer need to catch up in this regard.



Good points but, not valid for myself. If I need a Dutch Oven, I'm all over on oval Staub but, an LC would serve me well too. I really don't see much need for a lid on my skillets with what I cook and how I cook. That could change over time but, right now isn't a factor for myself as I can't find the lid to the All-Clad skillet I have. I tend to use a Saute pan or Roasting pan if I need covered cooking that isn't a Dutch Oven.


----------



## deskjockey

William Hunt said:


> Anyone tried the SpringUSA carbon skillets? KaTom has the 12.5 inch for $100. I never used the product or supplier, but it looks interesting.



If you want a carbon steel fry pan/skillet, check out Darto from South America. I have a couple of pans from them and like them a lot.


----------



## KitchenCommander

I'm about ready to go after one of the new production 12" cast iron skillets. Stargazer has my attention at a much more attractive price point than the other two. Butter pat is 2x the price of Stargazer for the 12"! As mentioned above, the vintage market is getting more crowded and prices are climbing. The large pieces are reaching or eclipsing the cost of a new production piece, and I can be 100% sure it will be flat and crack free. I've already brought home two #10 Wagners with slight warp that was not noticable at purchase, and one with a crack. Warped pieces still work, but its more of a pet peeve at this point. 

There are still deals to be had on smaller stuff #8 and below, but #10 and larger is a chore to track down under $150.
Chicken Fryers are some of my favorite, I recommend them to anyone interested in cast iron due to the reduction in splatter from the high walls. I pick up nice examples when I come across them just to give as gifts. Same with cheap, smooth, #8's. 1970's era Lodge had smooth-er bottoms and raised heat rings can be had for about the cost of a new 10" lodge from Wal-Mart.


----------



## deskjockey

KitchenCommander said:


> I'm about ready to go after one of the new production 12" cast iron skillets. Stargazer has my attention at a much more attractive price point than the other two. Butter pat is 2x the price of Stargazer for the 12"! As mentioned above, the vintage market is getting more crowded and prices are climbing. The large pieces are reaching or eclipsing the cost of a new production piece, and I can be 100% sure it will be flat and crack free. I've already brought home two #10 Wagners with slight warp that was not noticable at purchase, and one with a crack. Warped pieces still work, but its more of a pet peeve at this point.
> 
> There are still deals to be had on smaller stuff #8 and below, but #10 and larger is a chore to track down under $150.
> Chicken Fryers are some of my favorite, I recommend them to anyone interested in cast iron due to the reduction in splatter from the high walls. I pick up nice examples when I come across them just to give as gifts. Same with cheap, smooth, #8's. 1970's era Lodge had smooth-er bottoms and raised heat rings can be had for about the cost of a new 10" lodge from Wal-Mart.



I don't know where in Texas you are but, I'm East Texas if you want to take a look at my Stargazer. The near verical walls of mine does reduce splatter a lot.


----------



## tally-ho

I just received a few Demeyere Atlantis 7 items : 11" sauté pan, 11" cocotte (dutch oven), 11" frying pan. Nothing worth mentionning that wasn't already said before, except that I purchased online at bestsale.be which has excellent prices on Demeyere series, for example the proline 7 frying pan 11" is 175€. Shipping is not free (13€), the carrier is DHL. All articles were shipped within its original sealed cardboard. They are not opening it to regroup all articles in a smaller box to save space.
They are also responsive. I had to cancel my order in order to change it, it needed to be refunded. It took 20 minutes by e-mail to ask first, then respond, then ask for the refund. It was 08:10 AM while the store usually opens at 09:00 AM. Great service, no brainer.


----------



## justaute

Stargazer looks good and tempting. I'm also considering De Buyer Mineral B Pro in 11".

I use both induction and a Blue Star gas range top.


----------



## tcmx3

justaute said:


> Stargazer looks good and tempting. I'm also considering De Buyer Mineral B Pro in 11".
> 
> I use both induction and a Blue Star gas range top.



JMO but Id rather have Stargazer than a Mineral B Pro. but this just comes down to not really loving carbon steel.

both are fantastic.

although this based on my recollection that the Mineral B Pro has the stainless handle and can go in the oven. the normal de buyer handle that isnt really oven safe is an absolute deal breaker for me


----------



## justaute

tcmx3 said:


> JMO but Id rather have Stargazer than a Mineral B Pro. but this just comes down to not really loving carbon steel.
> 
> both are fantastic.
> 
> although this based on my recollection that the Mineral B Pro has the stainless handle and can go in the oven. the normal de buyer handle that isnt really oven safe is an absolute deal breaker for me



What did you not like about carbon steel? I'm aware the differing characteristics of cast iron and carbon steel, but the lighter weigh of Mineral B Pro is a plus. That said, it's not really light at 4.8 lbs.


----------



## tcmx3

justaute said:


> What did you not like about carbon steel? I'm aware the differing characteristics of cast iron and carbon steel, but the lighter weigh of Mineral B Pro is a plus. That said, it's not really light at 4.8 lbs.



just struggle mightily with seasoning & subsequently oxidation.

stargazer is really braindead maintenance wise.

the one carbon steel pan I keep around is a crepe pan I like that though. never need to cook anything acidic in it though. perfect size for tortillas too.


----------



## justaute

tcmx3 said:


> just struggle mightily with seasoning & subsequently oxidation.
> 
> stargazer is really braindead maintenance wise.
> 
> the one carbon steel pan I keep around is a crepe pan I like that though. never need to cook anything acidic in it though. perfect size for tortillas too.



Thanks for the feedback. I like the "braindead" part. ha


----------



## deskjockey

justaute said:


> Stargazer looks good and tempting. I'm also considering De Buyer Mineral B Pro in 11".
> 
> I use both induction and a Blue Star gas range top.



I am a big DeBuyer Mineral B fan and own a lot of their pieces. However, currently, the Stargazer skillet is the one I use most. The Mineral B Chef's pan, in particular, is one I like a lot in addition to the crepe pans but, that Stargazer is simply awesome for my normal stovetop needs.

With their 15% off sale right now, I'm tempted to add the 10" skillet.


----------



## deskjockey

tcmx3 said:


> just struggle mightily with seasoning & subsequently oxidation.



I'm curious about your struggle with seasoning and general oxidation. My De Buyer Mineral B chef's pans are a little more challenging to season and keep "tuned up" but, something like that doesn't see much meat to add subtle reseasoning but is super easy to wipe down with a paper towel with a touch of oil (or in my case my favorite is bacon grease or peanut oil). Placed in a low heat oven for a while works well.

My Stargazer skillet is dead simple to maintain because it sees thick-cut bacon several mornings a week and a good amount of ground beef.


----------



## rickbern

deskjockey said:


> I'm curious about your struggle with seasoning and general oxidation. My De Buyer Mineral B chef's pans are a little more challenging to season and keep "tuned up" but, something like that doesn't see much meat to add subtle reseasoning but is super easy to wipe down with a paper towel with a touch of oil (or in my case my favorite is bacon grease or peanut oil). Placed in a low heat oven for a while works well.
> 
> My Stargazer skillet is dead simple to maintain because it sees thick-cut bacon several mornings a week and a good amount of ground beef.


You cook bacon in a skillet? I’ve always done it in a sheet pan in the oven. Rectangular shape seems more suited to the task


----------



## tomsch

I cook bacon in my cast iron since it helps with the seasoning but I have to admit that these days I've been using my air fryer. 13mins and perfect bacon without me having to wipe down the stovetop which I end up doing every single night.


----------



## tcmx3

rickbern said:


> *You cook bacon in a skillet?* I’ve always done it in a sheet pan in the oven. Rectangular shape seems more suited to the task



I feel like this is the most common way Americans cook bacon. speculation obviously, impossible to quantify.

I will admit if I have to make any real amount the oven is the easy winner though.


----------



## coxhaus

rickbern said:


> You cook bacon in a skillet? I’ve always done it in a sheet pan in the oven. Rectangular shape seems more suited to the task


I always use either cast iron or carbon steel to cook bacon. I tend to cook more with my carbon steel nowadays. My wife sometimes uses the Microwave but it does not taste right to me. I save my bacon grease that I use to flavor certain dishes that I cook.


----------



## Rangen

coxhaus said:


> I always use either cast iron or carbon steel to cook bacon. I tend to cook more with my carbon steel nowadays. My wife sometimes uses the Microwave but it does not taste right to me. I save my bacon grease that I use to flavor certain dishes that I cook.



Same. I suppose I should try the oven, but I wouldn't even consider the microwave. Good bacon flavor, if you have good bacon in the first place, is all about caramelization. Cast iron and carbon steel excel at that.


----------



## Justinv

I had a Misen carbon steel skillet show up in the mail recently as something to try. I like the rounded shape of the pan but absolutely hate the handle. 

I’m staring at some copper pots laying around that aren’t thick enough to be up to snuff but do have nice cast iron handles. I’m thinking of grabbing a cast iron handle from a copper pot and putting it on the misen. The rivets are in a similar location. I’m thinking its likely to not go well. Any thoughts?


----------



## BillHanna

Rangen said:


> Same. I suppose I should try the oven, but I wouldn't even consider the microwave. Good bacon flavor, if you have good bacon in the first place, is all about caramelization. Cast iron and carbon steel excel at that.


Thirded.


----------



## btbyrd

Good bacon flavor mostly happens to the bacon before it's cooked. Flavor development and browning from cooking happens rapidly once the moisture is driven out of it and the internal temp of the bacon can rise above 212F, and this will happen regardless of how it's cooked. The cookware itself doesn't matter that much; the technique is more important. Using an oven facilitates even cooking and allows you to cook large volumes of (more or less) perfectly flat bacon. I know that some people don't care for oven bacon because it is of uniform texture, though even most of these people will admit that oven cooking makes for better sandwich bacon. For "eating bacon" they prefer it to be crispy in some parts and chewy or floppy in others. That kind of uneven textural variation is where cooking in a pan "excels." I don't mind this style, but I usually do it in the oven for convenience and because my wife prefers the texture that way.

For what it's worth, Jacques Pepin uses the microwave.


----------



## rickbern

tomsch said:


> I cook bacon in my cast iron since it helps with the seasoning but I have to admit that these days I've been using my air fryer. 13mins and perfect bacon without me having to wipe down the stovetop which I end up doing every single night.


Yeah, I made some bacon in my Anova oven, came out really well. 10 minutes with humidity, ten more in dry convection.

My six year old neighbor who’s a bit of a bacon hound came over and thought it was banging.


----------



## deskjockey

rickbern said:


> You cook bacon in a skillet? I’ve always done it in a sheet pan in the oven. Rectangular shape seems more suited to the task



Yes! Bacon grease on an over-easy egg for breakfast is yummy!!! A little bacon grease in the skillet does wonders on a lot of things I cook. Potatoes are another thing I like to cook with a little bacon grease in the pan. Mmm ... Hash Browns, a couple of eggs and, some thick-cut bacon ...


----------



## deskjockey

btbyrd said:


> Good bacon flavor mostly happens to the bacon before it's cooked. Flavor development and browning from cooking happens rapidly once the moisture is driven out of it and the internal temp of the bacon can rise above 212F, and this will happen regardless of how it's cooked. The cookware itself doesn't matter that much; the technique is more important. Using an oven facilitates even cooking and allows you to cook large volumes of (more or less) perfectly flat bacon. I know that some people don't care for oven bacon because it is of uniform texture, though even most of these people will admit that oven cooking makes for better sandwich bacon. For "eating bacon" they prefer it to be crispy in some parts and chewy or floppy in others. That kind of uneven textural variation is where cooking in a pan "excels." I don't mind this style, but I usually do it in the oven for convenience and because my wife prefers the texture that way.
> 
> For what it's worth, Jacques Pepin uses the microwave.



First, Microwave bacon may be a quick handy "crutch" if you are in a hurry and not too picky about your bacon but, to me it is a distant third place finisher to bacon prepared in an oven or skillet.

Oven bacon probably is better for a sandwich or burger. I hadn't really considered that because I don't use bacon in my sandwiches and burgers at home. Maybe if I could source good tomatoes for BLT but, that is a different story for a different day.

Skillet bacon to me is tops for breakfast or crumbled into some soup or cornbread. For breakfast, well-rendered fat with crispy lean and luxurious rendered fat in the ridges is a real taste treat to me. When rendered well, you get that textural change and those little fat pieces with all the flavor and less heavy fat that is so nice IMHO.

Like women who fantasize about chocolate, I'm a bit that way with a nice piece of properly cooked and rendered thick-cut bacon. Good cookies, awesome cup cakes, or even better ... good bacon is where I'm at for a real taste treat!

I really need to find somewhere to get some awesome lettuce and tomatoes for a BLT.


----------



## coxhaus

deskjockey said:


> First, Microwave bacon may be a quick handy "crutch" if you are in a hurry and not too picky about your bacon but, to me it is a distant third place finisher to bacon prepared in an oven or skillet.
> 
> Oven bacon probably is better for a sandwich or burger. I hadn't really considered that because I don't use bacon in my sandwiches and burgers at home. Maybe if I could source good tomatoes for BLT but, that is a different story for a different day.
> 
> Skillet bacon to me is tops for breakfast or crumbled into some soup or cornbread. For breakfast, well-rendered fat with crispy lean and luxurious rendered fat in the ridges is a real taste treat to me. When rendered well, you get that textural change and those little fat pieces with all the flavor and less heavy fat that is so nice IMHO.
> 
> Like women who fantasize about chocolate, I'm a bit that way with a nice piece of properly cooked and rendered thick-cut bacon. Good cookies, awesome cup cakes, or even better ... good bacon is where I'm at for a real taste treat!
> 
> I really need to find somewhere to get some awesome lettuce and tomatoes for a BLT.


Nothing like home grown tomatoes on a BLT. Of course you need good bacon not that cheap stuff.


----------



## Lars

btbyrd said:


> For what it's worth, Jacques Pepin uses the microwave.


Marco Pierre White does that too


----------



## coxhaus

My thinking on Microwave bacon is it is uniform crispy but lacks the pan flavor in taste. Not for me.


----------



## tomsch

Yes on keeping the bacon grease no matter how it is cooked. I agree that there is nothing like a fried egg cooked in bacon grease.


----------



## mpier

tomsch said:


> I cook bacon in my cast iron since it helps with the seasoning but I have to admit that these days I've been using my air fryer. 13mins and perfect bacon without me having to wipe down the stovetop which I end up doing every single night. +1 for the air fryer!!


----------



## deskjockey

tomsch said:


> I cook bacon in my cast iron since it helps with the seasoning but I have to admit that these days I've been using my air fryer. 13mins and perfect bacon without me having to wipe down the stovetop which I end up doing every single night.



The near vertical wall of my Stargazer 12" skillet really keeps the mess down. Splatters from bacon are very few and far between for me.


----------



## tomsch

Good tip. I have a 10" Stargazer that I use quite a bit but a little small for bacon. Sounds like I need to pick up a 12"


----------



## deskjockey

tomsch said:


> Good tip. I have a 10" Stargazer that I use quite a bit but a little small for bacon. Sounds like I need to pick up a 12"



My 10" Lodge Chef's Skillet with its low and curved sides will fry some bacon and an egg pretty good but, the splatters are pretty bad. I agree with you, that a 10" Stargazer will be a bit small for most bacon. 
Grab a 12" Stargazer and don't look back! They really work well and should be a welcome addition to most household kitchens.


----------



## Jovidah

I'm considering caving on some of the Demeyere frying pans... anyone have any experience comparing the different lines? Proline vs Multiline vs Industry? I found all the technical data and differences but almost nothing comparing the lines in actual usage.
Cooking on gas now but want to keep the option open of doing induction in the future.


----------



## rickbern

I had an industry 5 24cm rondeau. Nothing special vs any other multi clad cookware. Gave it to a friend that I love, she was thrilled. Bought a proline, I was thrilled with the upgrade. I liked it so much that I also bought the 28cm size too.

If the rondeau had been a stick handled pan, honestly, I would have kept it and lived happily ever after

How’s that for anecdotal evidence?

Edit. I cook on gas


----------



## Dan-

I have all proline/atlantis. They are worth it. Making a roux, you can use high heat. When caramelizing onions you can basically ignore them if you have the heat level right. The lids for the straight-sided pans fit the frying pans. 

The only challenge is that sometimes it's difficult to get the heat down low enough on gas, but induction will fix that.


----------



## Campbell

I also have the proline series. They are fantastic pans. They are heavier than my Mauviel's but they haven't warped, and they have been more resistant to scratching, and retain heat remarkably well. I've also cooked with All-clad and other lesser quality pans, but the Prolines are the best SS pans I've ever used.


----------



## cooktocut

Dan- said:


> Making a roux, you can use high heat.


How dreamy


----------



## Jovidah

rickbern said:


> I had an industry 5 24cm rondeau. Nothing special vs any other multi clad cookware. Gave it to a friend that I love, she was thrilled. Bought a proline, I was thrilled with the upgrade. I liked it so much that I also bought the 28cm size too.
> 
> If the rondeau had been a stick handled pan, honestly, I would have kept it and lived happily ever after
> 
> How’s that for anecdotal evidence?
> 
> Edit. I cook on gas


How would you describe the upgrade from the industry to the proline? How was it 'better'?

I'm kinda torn between the multiline / industry (they're the same thickness) and the proline. I know the proline has more thermal mass and it's generally acclaimed as 'the best', but the weight increase is significant enough that I can see it being annoying tossing food around in them (I'm looking at 28 and 32cm versions). I can also see the heat retention actually being more of a hindrance than a help in some instances.
But everytime I consider the multiline I anticipate FOMO.


----------



## tcmx3

Every pan is a compromise. Proline stuff is amazing for skillets, but tbh I prefer the lighter, fully clad Industry 5 for saucepans (Atlantis/Proline are fully clad on things like skillets, but not on sauce pans).

The Proline skillet is the single best pan on the market IMO. Ultra even heating, tons of thermal mass, good handles, no rivets. Basically there's nothing not to like about it IMO. A bit pricey but still cheaper than copper these days.


----------



## Sdo

Jovidah said:


> How would you describe the upgrade from the industry to the proline? How was it 'better'?
> 
> I'm kinda torn between the multiline / industry (they're the same thickness) and the proline. I know the proline has more thermal mass and it's generally acclaimed as 'the best', but the weight increase is significant enough that I can see it being annoying tossing food around in them (I'm looking at 28 and 32cm versions). I can also see the heat retention actually being more of a hindrance than a help in some instances.
> But everytime I consider the multiline I anticipate FOMO.


Multiline is 7 ply ( less thicker than he proline ) and Industry is 5. I have a multiline and it is amazing.


----------



## Jovidah

tcmx3 said:


> Every pan is a compromise. Proline stuff is amazing for skillets, but tbh I prefer the lighter, fully clad Industry 5 for saucepans (Atlantis/Proline are fully clad on things like skillets, but not on sauce pans).
> 
> The Proline skillet is the single best pan on the market IMO. Ultra even heating, tons of thermal mass, good handles, no rivets. Basically there's nothing not to like about it IMO. A bit pricey but still cheaper than copper these days.


Yeah the price of proper copper pans is unbearable at this point; they make Demeyere look like a bargain.
Personally I'm not that bothered with the straight wall stuff. I have some 15 euro pots that cook water absolutely fine. For anything saucey, delicate or requiring more finesse than simply a rolling boil I just go for a few of the fully clad conical sauciers I was lucky enough to get on the cheap. I have a sneaking suspicion I'll eventually find a way to legitimize replacing those with some Atlantis versions, but it's not exactly urgent.
In my perfect kitchen you'd see nothing but conical sauciers in different sizes, frying pans, and maybe one or two enamelled cast iron pots for stewy stuff.


----------



## Jovidah

Campbell said:


> I also have the proline series. They are fantastic pans. They are heavier than my Mauviel's but they haven't warped, and they have been more resistant to scratching, and retain heat remarkably well. I've also cooked with All-clad and other lesser quality pans, but the Prolines are the best SS pans I've ever used.


What makes the proline better for you than those the Mauviel / All-Clad? They're probably pretty good 'surrogates' for Demeyere's thinner lines. 
Warping the 4.8mm proline... yeah... I don't really see it happening without a jet engine. 


Sdo said:


> Multiline is 7 ply ( less thicker than he proline ) and Industry is 5. I have a multiline and it is amazing.


Yeah I've figured out the technical difference. Multiline is basically bigger pans made out of the 3mm atlantis 7 ply stuff. I doubt it's very different from the Industry in the same thickness. Price difference is also negligible... although I do wonder if the aluminium on the multiline is thinner to accomodate the extra layers within the same thickness?

Also... in general; did the multiline ever leave you wishing you bought a different line? Would you still go for multiline over the proline for example it if price wasn't a factor?


----------



## deskjockey

Jovidah said:


> I'm considering caving on some of the Demeyere frying pans... anyone have any experience comparing the different lines? Proline vs Multiline vs Industry? I found all the technical data and differences but almost nothing comparing the lines in actual usage.
> Cooking on gas now but want to keep the option open of doing induction in the future.



I really like my Proline skillet. For a stainless option, it works really well for me. It has a lot of thermal mass so, it heats up a little slower than my All-Clad. The All-Clad is good but, I like my Proline a lot more.


----------



## Sdo

Jovidah said:


> What makes the proline better for you than those the Mauviel / All-Clad? They're probably pretty good 'surrogates' for Demeyere's thinner lines.
> Warping the 4.8mm proline... yeah... I don't really see it happening without a jet engine.
> 
> Yeah I've figured out the technical difference. Multiline is basically bigger pans made out of the 3mm atlantis 7 ply stuff. I doubt it's very different from the Industry in the same thickness. Price difference is also negligible... although I do wonder if the aluminium on the multiline is thinner to accomodate the extra layers within the same thickness?
> 
> Also... in general; did the multiline ever leave you wishing you bought a different line? Would you still go for multiline over the proline for example it if price wasn't a factor?


I do not know the prices now but I got my proline 28cm frying pan for 139EUR and although I did not try the proline I have never thought about getting the Proline after buying and trying the multiline.
Not sure if there is much of a performance difference but I am very happy with my pan and would buy it again.

It is also very easy to clean. Demeyere are awesome pans.


----------



## Nemo

Jovidah said:


> How would you describe the upgrade from the industry to the proline? How was it 'better'?
> 
> I'm kinda torn between the multiline / industry (they're the same thickness) and the proline. I know the proline has more thermal mass and it's generally acclaimed as 'the best', but the weight increase is significant enough that I can see it being annoying tossing food around in them (I'm looking at 28 and 32cm versions). I can also see the heat retention actually being more of a hindrance than a help in some instances.
> But everytime I consider the multiline I anticipate FOMO.


I bought the 32 cm Proline on the recommendation of this thread. Loved it so much that I bought the 28 cm as well.

Heat distribution is the best I have used. It does retain a bit of heat but this is manageable with a fairly easy learning curve.

The 28cm and 32cm have helper handles but they are heavy enough to make tossing only for those who don't want to take up a gym membership.

I have never used them but the smaller proline pans don't have a helper handle. The 20cm has a thinner aluminum layer (3mm instead of 4.8mm), so is disproportionately lighter. This probably also affects heat distribution (although I guess there is less distance to distribute) and retention.


----------



## Dan-

Nemo said:


> The 28cm and 32cm have helper handles but they are heavy enough to make tossing only for those who don't want to take up a gym membership.
> 
> I have never used them but the smaller proline pans don't have a helper handle. The 20cm has a thinner aluminum layer (3mm instead of 4.8mm), so is disproportionately lighter. This probably also affects heat distribution (although I guess there is less distance to distribute) and retention.


I do have the 20, 24, 28, and 32. I can flip things in the larger pans with one or sometimes two hands without using the helper handle, but I realize I'm an outlier. The little one we use for breakfast sausages and such. It is much thinner, but it works fine for what it is. Mostly you would choose it over a cheaper one because the lids from the other pots fit it.


----------



## Campbell

Jovidah said:


> What makes the proline better for you than those the Mauviel / All-Clad? They're probably pretty good 'surrogates' for Demeyere's thinner lines.
> Warping the 4.8mm proline... yeah... I don't really see it happening without a jet engine.
> 
> Yeah I've figured out the technical difference. Multiline is basically bigger pans made out of the 3mm atlantis 7 ply stuff. I doubt it's very different from the Industry in the same thickness. Price difference is also negligible... although I do wonder if the aluminium on the multiline is thinner to accomodate the extra layers within the same thickness?
> 
> Also... in general; did the multiline ever leave you wishing you bought a different line? Would you still go for multiline over the proline for example it if price wasn't a factor?


We cook with a natural gas cooktop and an electric stove. Over time the high heat has warped the thinner pans. They wobble a little bit and the contents often gravitate towards the low spots. The proline cleans up easier and doesn't have any rivets to work around. The handles are great. Everything is well thought out and well executed. The only time I don't use them is when I am cooking with cast iron.


----------



## OldSaw

OK, I’m late to the party for this old thread. After installing an induction cooktop I needed some new pans. A couple of members over on the Badger & Blade forum recommended Demeyere Atlantis. So I got one, and then another, and another…

I am now a huge fan of the Demeyere Atlantis/Proline series. They are the best pans I ever had.

The large one with the helper handle is my favorite for omelettes. Lots of real estate for spreading the egg out. The smaller pan is the largest without a helper handle. I like to use it to prep the omelette fillings. (Looks like I over cooked that first omelette.)









Bacon in the oven is a huge time saver and the rendered fat comes out much cleaner. Before going in the oven I cover it with a piece of parchment to keep the splatter down.





The Atlantis sauté pan with lid is another favorite workhorse. Lately I’ve been making popcorn in it. It’s much quicker and easier to clean than my Whirley Popper.


----------



## ptolemy

Jovidah said:


> I'm considering caving on some of the Demeyere frying pans... anyone have any experience comparing the different lines? Proline vs Multiline vs Industry? I found all the technical data and differences but almost nothing comparing the lines in actual usage.
> Cooking on gas now but want to keep the option open of doing induction in the future.


I have only used profile and kitchenaid 7ply with copper (made by demeyere) very nice and very heavy. better than all-clad d7, coppercore imo



Jovidah said:


> How would you describe the upgrade from the industry to the proline? How was it 'better'?
> 
> I'm kinda torn between the multiline / industry (they're the same thickness) and the proline. I know the proline has more thermal mass and it's generally acclaimed as 'the best', but the weight increase is significant enough that I can see it being annoying tossing food around in them (I'm looking at 28 and 32cm versions). I can also see the heat retention actually being more of a hindrance than a help in some instances.
> But everytime I consider the multiline I anticipate FOMO.


i can't imaine tossing anything in my 32cm profile... it's very heavy.


Jovidah said:


> Yeah the price of proper copper pans is unbearable at this point; they make Demeyere look like a bargain.
> Personally I'm not that bothered with the straight wall stuff. I have some 15 euro pots that cook water absolutely fine. For anything saucey, delicate or requiring more finesse than simply a rolling boil I just go for a few of the fully clad conical sauciers I was lucky enough to get on the cheap. I have a sneaking suspicion I'll eventually find a way to legitimize replacing those with some Atlantis versions, but it's not exactly urgent.
> In my perfect kitchen you'd see nothing but conical sauciers in different sizes, frying pans, and maybe one or two enamelled cast iron pots for stewy stuff.



i think that in the end, as long as you use quality cookware, the rest can be tied to your technique, so if you use d7, coppercore, 5ply demeyere or atlantis, your results should be within 3% with proper cooking / heating techniques. there could be some exceptions on outlier dishes, but for the most part, imo, it's hard to directly compare since every cook is different with different techniques.


----------



## jjlotti

The cook and the ingredients are what make the the dish. Daniel Boulud will outcook you with a butter knife and a Family Dollar skillet. That said diversity is key to a good cook. Copper with tin linining, clad stainless, iron, enameled iron,and yes, non stick all have there place in a properly appointed kitchen. My stainless opinions for the op. Demeyere are great all around. I have the 12.5 7ply. For maillard All Clad D5. You can leave it on high heat for 5 minutes with nothing in it and transitions to the oven beautifully. It will not warp. No experience with d7. No copper core skillet experience but have their 2 and 4 quart sauciers which are great. Kitchen Craft 7 ply skillets are the finest quality steel to me. mirror smooth and just will not scratch. Ugly antiquated handles, that aren't good for the oven make little sense, but these pans are a joy for sautéed vegetables etc. What's my main observation? Jeez I'm spoiled and love to cook...


----------



## btbyrd

OldSaw said:


> Bacon in the oven is a huge time saver and the rendered fat comes out much cleaner. Before going in the oven I cover it with a piece of parchment to keep the splatter down.



I'm also a huge fan of bacon in the oven. Great tip about the parchment. Is that just their roasting pan that you're using to cook the bacon?


----------



## jjlotti

Me too! Just wonder if the parchment on top creates a steam effect inhibiting browning? My way? Parchment liner with wire rack.


----------



## Jovidah

I went for the KKF solution. In case of doubt, order both.


----------



## Campbell

Jovidah said:


> I went for the KKF solution. In case of doubt, order both.


My man!


----------



## OldSaw

btbyrd said:


> I'm also a huge fan of bacon in the oven. Great tip about the parchment. Is that just their roasting pan that you're using to cook the bacon?


Yes. I’d been wanting one for years and finally got one before last thanksgiving.


----------



## deskjockey

Jovidah said:


> I went for the KKF solution. In case of doubt, order both.


Which two did you get?


----------



## wabi

I have to pipe in here. Like knives, using the right pan for the job helps you get great results. I like to cook. I like knives, I like good cookware. My EDC pots...Falk copper, Staub, and a smattering of All Clad. Woks...I have 2 Cen brothers hand hammered woks, a Yamada, and a Made In wok. I use them all. I guess my Falk frying pans are high end, but they dont get the most use. In my day to day cooking, good old cast iron and carbon steel gets most of the duty. Over the years I have managed to collect a nice collection of Griswold skillets, and they are daily drivers. I have owned and tried a whole range of carbon steel pans, and the ones that get the most use are 2 by Made In...and some made by Darto in Argentina. The Darto's are not expensive, and are awesome. Eggs are made in a cheap Tramotina non stick frying pan..the only non stick I use. Unless I am making a sauce or braise that is acidic..cast iron or carbon steel rules.


----------



## sumis

my 2¢, from owning a few demeyere pans, and used several from different series: industry 5, multiline, proline, etc; no big deal! the difference between these demeyere lines will of course not make or break your cooking results. 
personally, for a +28cm skillet, i mostly prefer the lighter of the alternatives, and i rarely use the large skillet with the helper handle.

i like the demeyere stuff a lot, but from industry 5 and above your technique is _more_ of a concern than mass or heat retention, etc.

but yes, your heat source kind of dictates a lot. and a crappy induction range will probably benefit from 'better' pans.

i'm just a home cook, but with friends who cooks for a living, and i grew up with a great chef and around a kitchen. as an adult getting into cooking gear and after spending too much time and money on it, i took a step back and asked myself, what gear are the chefs and cooks that i know and/or admire using to get their results? nowadays, my most used pan is a stainless 26cm sauteuse, 3-ply, costs 50€ at the restaurant supply store. i don't use it because my technique is good (it isn't), but because the pan is as good as anything!

demeyere's silvinox surface is dope though.

.


----------



## Jovidah

deskjockey said:


> Which two did you get?


'All of them'. I figured it kinda made sense to splurge since the prices on them are likely to rise soon anyway (they still haven't been adjusted for 'inflation' like almost everything else). Decided to basically go overboard, buy everything on my wishlist so I can basically stop looking at frying pans for the rest of my life.

Went with a 24/28/32 set from the multiline (basically 3mm proline / industry in 5 layers), and a 28 proline. My reasoning is that while the proline is definitly 'the best' for searing meats, most people seem perfectly happy with the lighter models as well, and I found that 3mm stuff is at least adequate from a thermal perspective for most things I do with them. Less mass means more responsive and easier to handle. Hence the lighter models that will be used for most saute and frying duties. 

It's a bit of an investment but I figured I'd rather skip all the way to the high end than take all the intermediate steps, and end up buying the high end later on anyway. A lot of the mid-range stuff is still expensive enough that it makes more sense to me to skip it altogether - especially when I found most to be on the rather thin side, or being flawed in one way or another.


----------



## MarcelNL

Buy once, cry once is my motto for things like this!


----------



## Jovidah

MarcelNL said:


> Buy once, cry once is my motto for things like this!


Yeah... tho I'm a strong proponent of 'good enoguh is good enoguh', trying to get by with 'bang for the buck' pans has been a bit of a false economy for me. From a thermal perspective I really liked my Ikea Sensuel pans, but 5-10 years later all the handles on the frying pans have started getting ever looser on the rivets, the insides are slowly starting to show pitting (they probably skimped on the steel and put 18/0 on the inside)... my cheap enamelled made in china cast iron started to flake its enamel after 5 years... Really the only exception has been the de Buyer carbone pans. 
Didn't really feel like experimenting my way upwards on the priceladder only to eventually end up at the same destination only having wasted even more money.


----------



## Corradobrit1

Since moving to Germany and not being able to find reasonably priced Cuisinart Classic French pans I decided to check out some more common French makers. Been super impressed by the DeBuyer SS Affinity range. I have the 24cm frying pan and a 2 liter saucepan so far. I found the larger Cuisinarts warped when heated to high temps for searing, but the DeBuyer has held up well despite a little abuse.


----------



## Honerabi

Seem to be reaching for the Demeyere John Pawson 9.5 in. skillet more. Easy to use a spatula with, handle is ergonomic, and is easy to clean. I had my doubts. The top from the 8 qt. stockpot fits.


----------



## Jovidah

My initial impressions so far... the multiline (same thickness as industry) and proline are simply different products. It's not that one is really straight up better than the other... they're just different tools.

IMO the proline is awesome for searing meat because of the thickness; it's essentially a stainless cast iron thermal brick. But as a result it's also heavy - a bit too heavy to comfortably toss in 28 cm size - and slow; takes longer to heat and longer to cool down. I kinda wished the 28 cm proline didn't come with the helper handle since it's just adding unnecessary weight for me.

So I actually think for 'all round saute / veggie usage' the multiline is actually the better choice. It's 3 mm (just like the Industry), noticably lighter and more nimble, responds faster and much easier to toss. On my gas stove it's still plenty thick to provide even heat, while easier to handle for all the things that don't require a massive thermal brick.

I'm actually really happy I bought pans from both lines; going from multiline to proline isn't so much an upgrade, I think it's more of a sidegrade.

Only real complaint I have is that the handles are on the small side. For me they're a bit on the thin side, and the corners are still a bit too squarish. Easy to solve with a towel, which I have at hand for my de Buyer anyway, but I'd rather just have a slightly thicker handle.


----------



## sansho

to those of you with demeyere proline skillets...

how do you clean them?

do i need to worry about messing up the "satin Silvinox finish"? does it matter if i go to town on it with a green scotchbrite scrubber pad?


----------



## drrayeye

So far, the only one missing is Hestan Nanobond. I have had an 11" nanobond fry pan for three years, and it is an interesting alternative. Check it out.


----------



## ptolemy

sansho said:


> to those of you with demeyere proline skillets...
> 
> how do you clean them?
> 
> do i need to worry about messing up the "satin Silvinox finish"? does it matter if i go to town on it with a green scotchbrite scrubber pad?


i first add water, bring it to simmer and let it go for 20-30 min. then use barkeepers friend. works very well. and no, i am not worried about removing the silvinox coating.


----------



## Nemo

I sometimes scrub with a copper wool. Much softer than steel. No obvious scratching.


----------



## sumis

sansho said:


> to those of you with demeyere proline skillets...
> 
> how do you clean them?
> 
> do i need to worry about messing up the "satin Silvinox finish"? does it matter if i go to town on it with a green scotchbrite scrubber pad?



sometimes i boil water and then scrub. i mostly just use a white scotch pad. on a few occasions i’ve lightly scrubbed with a green pad. i find the silvinox surface VERY easy to clean. 

but i find stainless in general easy to clean, and have no sticking issues with my less expensive restaurant supply pans. 

.


----------



## Dan-

sansho said:


> to those of you with demeyere proline skillets...
> 
> how do you clean them?
> 
> do i need to worry about messing up the "satin Silvinox finish"? does it matter if i go to town on it with a green scotchbrite scrubber pad?


I use a blue one. If stuff is stuck, I will boil with added baking soda. If you need to polish, bar keepers friend does the trick. (or you can break out the finger stones )


----------



## sansho

thanks


----------



## Jovidah

sansho said:


> to those of you with demeyere proline skillets...
> 
> how do you clean them?
> 
> do i need to worry about messing up the "satin Silvinox finish"? does it matter if i go to town on it with a green scotchbrite scrubber pad?


Just like all stainless pans; hot water, soap, plastic dish brush. If something is persostent give it a bit of a soak. Never really needed more than that. The water being hot makes a big difference; you're pretty much deglazing whatever is left in the pan.


----------



## damiano

sansho said:


> to those of you with demeyere proline skillets...
> 
> how do you clean them?
> 
> do i need to worry about messing up the "satin Silvinox finish"? does it matter if i go to town on it with a green scotchbrite scrubber pad?


When I had one I just put it in the dishwasher. The Prolines are notoriously difficult to clean, especially re high heat polymerisation. Anything extra I needed to do I’d just a green scrubber with barkeepers friend. They can withstand a lot.


----------



## Sdo

Never had any issues with cleaning the ones I have. Actually I have never had such easy pans to wash as these.


----------



## Chips

I occasionally just let Easy Off Oven Cleaner do the heavy lifting for the burnt on enamel residue that requires too much elbow grease, time and green scrubbies to clean.


----------



## coxhaus

I received my first copper pan that I plan to use. Does anybody know anything about this pan? I cleaned and boiled slat water in it. It heats fast to where the handles were hot fast. The bubbles when boiling were across the whole pan. I need to give the onion test. We are having smash burgers tonight, but my wife wants to eat them out. I would like to cook the onions and meat in my new pan oh well another day.

That spot on the middle picture is some kind of crap which I missed. I don't know if I will polish as I plan to use it on the grill as a Paella pan also.


----------



## ptolemy

coxhaus said:


> I received my first copper pan that I plan to use. Does anybody know anything about this pan? I cleaned and boiled slat water in it. It heats fast to where the handles were hot fast. The bubbles when boiling were across the whole pan. I need to give the onion test. We are having smash burgers tonight, but my wife wants to eat them out. I would like to cook the onions and meat in my new pan oh well another day.
> 
> That spot on the middle picture is some kind of crap which I missed. I don't know if I will polish as I plan to use it on the grill as a Paella pan also.
> 
> View attachment 188464
> 
> 
> View attachment 188465
> 
> 
> View attachment 188466



16" paella pan that was made for sur la table. mauviel used to make exclusive for slt, william sonoma and few others in the past 40 years


----------



## coxhaus

I received my sur la table 16-inch copper Paella pan last evening. I just cooked smash burgers today and I am a believer in copper pans. This 16-inch copper pan seems to cook very evenly in my way of thinking. Way better than the 16-inch carbon steel pan providing you have the money. I could make do with the carbon steel version but I prefer the copper version just suing it once.
A 16-inch pan may be the extremes so I am not sure if it makes a lot of difference in smaller versions? My All-Clad copper pans which are smaller seem to cook evenly and still react to gas burner changes pretty fast. My sur la table 16-inch Paella pan is a keeper for me.

I grilled onions first across the copper pan and then fried patties. The onions pretty evenly cooked much better than last time in the carbon steel pan. I think the patties were better also. I buttered and toasted the buns in the carbon steel pan with both pans on my range at the same time. The onions could have been cooked longer but my wife was hungry for lunch and did not want to wait. I put a small amount of Dr Pepper on the onions.


----------



## Racheski

coxhaus said:


> I received my sur la table 16-inch copper Paella pan last evening. I just cooked smash burgers today and I am a believer in copper pans. This 16-inch copper pan seems to cook very evenly in my way of thinking. Way better than the 16-inch carbon steel pan providing you have the money. I could make do with the carbon steel version but I prefer the copper version just suing it once.
> A 16-inch pan may be the extremes so I am not sure if it makes a lot of difference in smaller versions? My All-Clad copper pans which are smaller seem to cook evenly and still react to gas burner changes pretty fast. My sur la table 16-inch Paella pan is a keeper for me.
> 
> I grilled onions first across the copper pan and then fried patties. The onions pretty evenly cooked much better than last time in the carbon steel pan. I think the patties were better also. I buttered and toasted the buns in the carbon steel pan with both pans on my range at the same time. The onions could have been cooked longer but my wife was hungry for lunch and did not want to wait. I put a small amount of Dr Pepper on the onions.
> 
> View attachment 188558
> 
> View attachment 188559


The entire surface of the pan is never going to heat evenly given the size of the pan compared to your burner, but if you are cooking burgers having a cooler area at the top of the pan that is not directly above the burner is advantageous - you can toast buns, keep onions warm, etc...and it looks like the bottom portion that is above the burner has more than enough room to saute.


----------



## coxhaus

Racheski said:


> The entire surface of the pan is never going to heat evenly given the size of the pan compared to your burner, but if you are cooking burgers having a cooler area at the top of the pan that is not directly above the burner is advantageous - you can toast buns, keep onions warm, etc...and it looks like the bottom portion that is above the burner has more than enough room to saute.


My copper pan comes pretty close. It is amazing to me. It is easy to tell with the carbon steel pan there is a difference in temps from center to edge.

My Viking range has a 4 1/2 burner with the flame another 1/2 inch to 1 inch on each side depending on settings.


----------



## Jovidah

To be fair, carbon steel and cast iron are somewhat mediocre at spreading the heat... aluminium or stainless clad aluminium always does a much better job as well.


----------



## btbyrd

Carbon steel is a terrible conductor. Copper is the opposite. As I said early on in this thread, I don't think there's really such a thing as "high end carbon steel" (or cast iron). There's *expensive* CS and CI. There's "artisanal" CS and CI. But it's all bad at heating evenly.

EDIT: Jovidah beat me to it.


----------



## Jovidah

I don't think carbon or CI is necessarily bad though... it certainly has its uses. But you have to be aware of its strengths and limitations. On my gas stove it's no problem to get them evenly heated as long as I stick to normal frying pan diameters... but if you have an induction cooktop with relatively small coils that generate massive hotspots they're probably not going to work.

Admittedly though my experience based on De Buyer stuff that also has a good price to performance. I'm struggling to see how I'd justify paying 4x as much for a carbon steel pan and how it'd do better...


----------



## coxhaus

Jovidah said:


> I don't think carbon or CI is necessarily bad though... it certainly has its uses. But you have to be aware of its strengths and limitations. On my gas stove it's no problem to get them evenly heated as long as I stick to normal frying pan diameters... but if you have an induction cooktop with relatively small coils that generate massive hotspots they're probably not going to work.
> 
> Admittedly though my experience based on De Buyer stuff that also has a good price to performance. I'm struggling to see how I'd justify paying 4x as much for a carbon steel pan and how it'd do better...



Probably more like 5 to 7 times as much depends on if you buy it new. People are talking about demeyere pans which don't seem cheap to me either. My big drawback is the heavy bottom thick layer. I would rather have copper since I have gas.


----------



## Jovidah

Main perk of Demeyere vs copper is that it's futureproof; if you ever end up no longer having access to gas and switching to induction at least you know all your pans will still work. And tho they're not cheap they're still significantly less expensive than copper pans these days.


----------



## Dan-

Jovidah said:


> Main perk of Demeyere vs copper is that it's futureproof; if you ever end up no longer having access to gas and switching to induction at least you know all your pans will still work. And tho they're not cheap they're still significantly less expensive than copper pans these days.


The other is you can throw the demeyere in the dishwasher.


----------



## ptolemy

Dan- said:


> Dan- said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other is you can throw the demeyere in the dishwasher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jovidah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Main perk of Demeyere vs copper is that it's futureproof; if you ever end up no longer having access to gas and switching to induction at least you know all your pans will still work. And tho they're not cheap they're still significantly less expensive than copper pans these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan- said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other is you can throw the demeyere in the dishwasher.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


i have demeyere atlantis 12.6", kitchenaid made by demeyere (with 2mm of copper base almost other) 5qt sauté pan, 16" mauviel mave ws paella pan and I have used 28cm matfer and 32cm I think falk copper pans.

If I am going for high heat, crust, I will go for demeyere made made pans. To me, they are just built like tanks . It doesn't mean others wont work, just those are more tanky imo. The saute pan is amazing for when you need to get great crust but then want to do a sauce and want less evaporation at the end (it has straight sides and a lid). 

They are all great pans, but i def babied more copper ones...


----------



## MarcelNL

if I'm not misstaken Debuyer makes a line of stainless lined copper fit for induction, called Prima Matera, I have the 16 cm saute pan for sauces etc and LOVE it, they also make a 34cm 








Poêle ronde PRIMA MATERA, copper stainless steel, ø 32cm, Pans - De Buyer


Poêle ronde PRIMA MATERA, copper stainless steel, Pans. De Buyer - French manufacturer of kitchen equipment and utensils.




www.debuyer.com


----------



## johnvburke100

I have an All-Clad sauteuse which is terriffic for risotto--more a matter of the shape than the material, I think--plus a couple of low-end Vollrath non-stick 10 inch skillets and a 12 inch Vollrath non-stick skillet. My cast iron Lodge pans get very little use--they're far too heavy for sautéing--and I don't think the difference in performance between All-Clad skillets and the low-end Vollraths is worth the difference in price. This reflects my observation of professional kitchens such as Rreidiii mentioned. Restaurant supply companies have the Vollrath at very reasonable prices--take a look at ChefsToys web site for a typical price list. For long, slow cooking--the kind a restaurant can't afford to do ("Good choice, sir, your osso buco will be up in a mere two or three hours")--I like Le Creuset enamel cast iron, and Lodge's attempt to imitate it I think falls short. I have a small unlined copper "butter warmer" that I use when I need to make caramel--it heats up super fast and has a handy pour spout for making meringue--and a 12 quart aluminum stock pot--the only unlined (reactive) aluminum utensil I use. In general, I agree that high end utensils are as much about aesthetics as about cooking performance: nothing wrong with spending extra for aesthetics, but wide price differences, in my experience, don't translate to wide quality differences in results.


----------



## boomchakabowwow

if i need even heat on my cast iron or carbon, i warm the thing thorougly in the oven first. its bad when i try to do the same thing stovetop. it just doesnt move the warmth around very great.


----------



## ptolemy

boomchakabowwow said:


> if i need even heat on my cast iron or carbon, i warm the thing thorougly in the oven first. its bad when i try to do the same thing stovetop. it just doesnt move the warmth around very great.


My issue with that is, for some reason, my cast iron pan smokes and smells when heating in the oven.. i don't know why...


----------



## JASinIL2006

boomchakabowwow said:


> if i need even heat on my cast iron or carbon, i warm the thing thorougly in the oven first. its bad when i try to do the same thing stovetop. it just doesnt move the warmth around very great.



Same here. I normally won't fire up the oven just to pre-heat cast iron, but if it's on already, I always do this. 

@ptolemy , what temp are you heating the pan to? I regularly heat mine in the oven to 475F without smoking.


----------



## ptolemy

JASinIL2006 said:


> Same here. I normally won't fire up the oven just to pre-heat cast iron, but if it's on already, I always do this.
> 
> @ptolemy , what temp are you heating the pan to? I regularly heat mine in the oven to 475F without smoking.


usually around 400 to 425. 

I think it's because the sides maybe not perfectly clean. when it's on a gas, it doesn't smoke, but in oven, somehow it does... I don't use my cast iron often anymore.. except to toast spices, nuts, and to make quesadillas.. but I used to use it for many more things, like steaks, burgers, pork chops, or any other type of meat cooking


----------

