# Best luxury copper fry pan



## welshstar (Feb 14, 2018)

Hi

Not posted for a while so thought id come back and ask some advice

Im looking to buy a present for myself and its going to be a nice copper frypan, ive narrowed it down to the following, either stainless or silver lined, no tin as i like high heat searing

Mauviel 250 C2
Falk traditional copper
Dehillerin thick copper 

Or should i really treat myself if its worth it to the $600 Deparquet copper with silver lining

Im well aware this is not a logic buy so i know there are probably cheaper equally good options but i want the best, i use the fry pan all the time so its most bang for the buck

Any thoughts or expereinces welcome

Alan


----------



## HRC_64 (Feb 14, 2018)

Matfer-Bourgeat handles and cooks the best
(for SS bi-metal pans).


----------



## DamageInc (Feb 15, 2018)

Mauviel 250C is literally the exact same as E. Dehillerin's thick copper. Only difference is a little decorative stamp neat the handle. I've never used Falk, but I have heard that their stainless lining can have pitting. Unconfirmed though, so take it with a grain of salt.

I see no reason to spend $600 on a silver lined pan.

I'd say get either the Mauviel/Dehillerin (which is what I've used for years and I am very happy with), or the Matfer-Bourgeat, which I've heard is excellent. No matter what, make sure the copper is at least 2,5mm thick.


----------



## Matus (Feb 15, 2018)

I really really like my large Falk pan . I got the one with stainless handle because it also has the helper handle on the other side. My main coritque of the pan would be that the main handle is too thin closer to the pan so lifting a non-empty pan with one hand would be a problem. The iron handles have completely different design, but there are also no helper hanldes.

I have no problems with the pitting and I use the pan since about 2 years on a regular basis. I actually like the sating surface finish from inside a lot.


----------



## bkultra (Feb 15, 2018)

Since you are looking at stainless lined copper you should know that Falk produces that bi-metal for all the manufactures... So preformance is a wash. You can mainly pick based on aesthetics, Falk has a brushed exterior and is easier to maintain and conceals scratches better. Many prefer the shinny and warm glow of polished copper.


----------



## HRC_64 (Feb 15, 2018)

bkultra said:


> Since you are looking at stainless lined copper you should know that Falk produces that bi-metal for all the manufactures...



This has been debunked--I believe directly by Falk.


----------



## bkultra (Feb 15, 2018)

HRC_64 said:


> This has been debunked--I believe directly by Falk.



Edit: you are correct, Falk has indeed confirmed they no longer produce the bi-metal used. Falk did patent the bimetal bonding process which revolutionized the copper cookware industry, but that patent has expired. I stand corrected...
but 2.5 foil should behave the same (2.3 of copper and .2 SS lining)


----------



## Paraffin (Feb 15, 2018)

We have a full set of Falk pots and pans at home, bought 15 years ago along with a big kitchen remodel (had some money to spend back then, not so much now). All have the original style cast iron handles, which are reasonably non-slip. 

No pitting of the stainless in 15 years of almost daily use. Also, I don't bother polishing. They look a little funky, a little "country-rustic" over time if you don't polish, but I like the way they look. Your mileage may vary... I know some people are into polishing copper.

One thing to be aware of, is that Falk cookware and anything similarly made is heavy! Almost like cast iron. Not a problem if you're just buying a fry pan, but if you get into entire sets, then washing something like the tall stock pot is a bit of a workout!


----------



## minibatataman (Feb 22, 2018)

Mauviel is my personal favorite.


----------



## brooksie967 (Feb 22, 2018)

Not to hi-jack this thread but can someone tell me the advantages of copper pans other than the heat distribution/conductivity of it?
Do these have to be seasoned like cast iron to be non stick? This seems like it should be something I have in my kitchen.


----------



## Paraffin (Feb 22, 2018)

brooksie967 said:


> Not to hi-jack this thread but can someone tell me the advantages of copper pans other than the heat distribution/conductivity of it?
> Do these have to be seasoned like cast iron to be non stick? This seems like it should be something I have in my kitchen.



Copper pans like we're talking about here are thick copper base and walls, with a stainless steel interior. No need to season, you treat it like any other pan with a SS surface.

The advantage of heavy copper with SS lining is all about the heat transfer. Heat comes on _fast_, it's very evenly distributed across the bottom with no hot spots, and the most important thing is that the heat _comes off fast_ too, when removed from the heat source. This is ideal for things like sauces where you want a lot of fine control, but it also works for general cooking. 

However, the SS lining isn't "non stick" the way a built-up seasoning on cast iron is, so I have cast iron pans as well as my heavy copper Falk cookware. And also some old Calphalon anodized aluminum for certain things, which have a sort-of seasoning surface when treated right. For some tasks like searing a steak or chicken after sous vide cooking, I want a blazing hot pan that actually holds heat like cast iron, and doesn't release/conduct heat to the outside like a Falk copper pan. It's also easier to abuse a cast iron pan over very high heat.


----------



## TheNewMexican (Mar 1, 2018)

I've been eyeing these for awhile. Not sure if you are set on stainless / copper or if traditional tinned copper would work as well. But, there you go.......

http://www.brooklyncoppercookware.com/


----------



## Paraffin (Mar 1, 2018)

TheNewMexican said:


> I've been eyeing these for awhile. Not sure if you are set on stainless / copper or if traditional tinned copper would work as well. But, there you go.......
> 
> http://www.brooklyncoppercookware.com/



I would never recommend tin-lined copper. It was the standard before the stainless steel lining method was developed, but it's a real pain in the ass to deal with. My first copper pan, years ago was tin. The surface eventually degraded and bubbled... might have been partly due to user error (they don't like high heat), but you'll eventually need any tin-lined pot or pan re-tinned if you use it enough. 

I ended up selling the tin/copper pan instead of hassling with re-tinning. Eventually bought Falk stainless-lined copper when I could finally afford it, and never looked back.


----------



## TheNewMexican (Mar 3, 2018)

The Thermal Conductivity for Copper and Stainless are so mismatched (223 vs 16 BTU/hr F ft), with stainless being so poor, that any benefit the copper provides is much negated. After being so easily distributed around the exterior of the pan, it's like the heat hits a brick wall prior to interacting with the food. The experience I've had with stainless is that it is highly prone to food sticking becoming gummy shortly. Aside from aesthetics, I'm not convinced of the benefit of copper clad stainless.


----------



## Jovidah (Mar 3, 2018)

Just keep in mind that regardless of the downsides of the stainless lining... there are good reasons they became the most popular. You can't melt off a stainless lining just by leaving it on the stove empty... Tin might have its advantages in conductivity but I'd recommend you to read deeper into it before buying as it's not exactly the most 'foolproof'.


----------



## HRC_64 (Mar 3, 2018)

TheNewMexican said:


> The Thermal Conductivity for Copper and Stainless are so mismatched (223 vs 16 BTU/hr F ft), with stainless being so poor, that any benefit the copper provides is much negated. After being so easily distributed around the exterior of the pan, it's like the heat hits a brick wall prior to interacting with the food. The experience I've had with stainless is that it is highly prone to food sticking becoming gummy shortly. Aside from aesthetics, I'm not convinced of the benefit of copper clad stainless.



FYI, 2.5mm 90/10 copper bimetal is 4.3x (430%) more conductive than 2.7mm stainless clad Aluminum tri-ply, 
and 22x (2200%) more conductive than stainless sheet.

So your statement is complete and utter rubbish,
with respect to conductivity.


----------



## Matus (Mar 3, 2018)

There are several aspects to consider when discussing pans in this regard. If one were after the best heat transmission - or conductance of the heat from the source to food, than all it would take would be as thin as possible copper or silver. In an extreme case it would act as there was no pan at all. But one usually also wants _even_ heat distribution - this means allowing the heat to get distributed along the bottom of the pan before it finds its way across and into the food.

In the second regard (though I do not have calculations or simulations to back this, so this is just a guess from a physicist) it may actually be advantageous to have first a layer of material that conducts heat very well (copper) topped with a thinner layer of material that is a worse heat conductor and thus serves as isolation layer and slows down the vertical heat transmission and thus gives the heat more time to spread horizontally. In other words - giving up some of the (integrated) heat conductivity to more even heat distribution.

I am not 100% sure but this could be a part of the reason for the multi-ply pans.

I am opened for corrections


----------



## Jovidah (Mar 3, 2018)

I think the main reason you usually see copper in a lined state is its reactivity.


----------



## HRC_64 (Mar 3, 2018)

Yeah, I think to Matus point...at the end of the day is usability.


----------



## buffhr (Mar 3, 2018)

Matus said:


> In the second regard (though I do not have calculations or simulations to back this, so this is just a guess from a physicist) it may actually be advantageous to have first a layer of material that conducts heat very well (copper) topped with a thinner layer of material that is a worse heat conductor and thus serves as isolation layer and slows down the vertical heat transmission and thus gives the heat more time to spread horizontally. In other words - giving up some of the (integrated) heat conductivity to more even heat distribution.
> 
> I am not 100% sure but this could be a part of the reason for the multi-ply pans.
> 
> I am opened for corrections



This sounds correct to me... Additionaly I have been researching pots and pans allot as of late... and I remember seeing something similar on one the manufacturers websites, could not track it down for the life of me. They had it worded as the stainless offers multiple benefits and something along the lines of heat retardant for proper heat distribution.


----------



## Paraffin (Mar 3, 2018)

TheNewMexican said:


> Aside from aesthetics, I'm not convinced of the benefit of copper clad stainless.



Well, the OP isn't talking about copper clad stainless cookware, like inexpensive SS pans with a copper coated bottom. The "luxury" category like Falk are traditional heavy copper with a thin interior stainless lining. Completely different animal, with different cooking characteristics.



Jovidah said:


> I think the main reason you usually see copper in a lined state is its reactivity.



For general cooking, yes. The one exception is a copper bowl, where you want the chemical reaction with egg whites for a stiff meringue.


----------



## TheNewMexican (Mar 3, 2018)

HRC_64 said:


> FYI, 2.5mm 90/10 copper bimetal is 4.3x (430%) more conductive than 2.7mm stainless clad Aluminum tri-ply,
> and 22x (2200%) more conductive than stainless sheet.
> 
> So your statement is complete and utter rubbish,
> with respect to conductivity.



Perhaps you should re-read my statement and familiarize yourself with basic thermal properties and what they mean. Also, 90/10 is a copper nickel alloy used industrially for flanges and marine applications for its resistance to corrosion by saltwater. The high end copper cookware which I have seen is 99.9% copper thick outer shell with care taken to ensure that the copper is restricted of hazardous substances since a very "popular" way of producing copper is throwing the ore on a leach pile and drenching it with sulfuric acid and other toxic chemicals to precipitate out the metal.

Throwing out percentages simply to quibble does not make one "in the know". I can provide references as needed for the things I've stated.


----------



## HRC_64 (Mar 3, 2018)

TheNewMexican said:


> Perhaps you should re-read my statement and familiarize yourself with basic thermal properties and what they mean. Also, 90/10 is a copper nickel alloy ..."



LOL

stopped reading right here


----------



## TheNewMexican (Mar 3, 2018)

HRC_64 said:


> LOL
> 
> stopped reading right here



Probably for the best..... Wouldn't want to hurt yourself, LOL!

http://copperalliance.org.uk/docs/librariesprovider5/resources/tn-31-cu-ni-90-10-and-70-30-pdf.pdf

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heap_leaching


----------



## Paraffin (Mar 3, 2018)

TheNewMexican said:


> Probably for the best..... Wouldn't want to hurt yourself, LOL!
> 
> http://copperalliance.org.uk/docs/librariesprovider5/resources/tn-31-cu-ni-90-10-and-70-30-pdf.pdf
> 
> ...



What does any of that have to do with the heavy copper cookware the OP is asking about?


----------



## HRC_64 (Mar 4, 2018)

Paraffin said:


> What does any of that have to do with the heavy copper cookware the OP is asking about?



Nothing. So good point.

For the sake of this thread, to keep it from turning into an argument, 
I think at this stage its better to refer anyone wanting to geek out
on physics to read up on the topic offline.

This is a good place to start: (cookware related)
https://www.centurylife.org/thermal-properties-of-metals/


----------



## HRC_64 (Mar 4, 2018)

The other critical fact that needs to be simply 
understood here is that 90/10 copper in this context
is not an obscure copper alloy (like 18/10 stainless, etc),
but rather a 90% copper / 10% stainless bi-metal.

this is the pre-cursor
industrial material 
that turns into pans.

so a 2.5mm 90/10 bimetal pan is 2.25 copper and 0.25 stainless

Suffice it to say, common sense
will show you that 90% copper laminate is better 
than 40% aluminum sandwich.

copper has roughly an index value of 400
and alu has roughly an index value of 200,

so 90% of 400 is 360, which is better than 200.
but keep in mind 40% of 200 is only 80,
which is way worse than 360 or 200.

the actual math is slightly more complex,
but not fundamentally different.

The index number for stainless steel
is so low-- at around 20-- when you factor
this into the equations the rank orders
not only don't change but they barely
move around.

cheers


----------



## Matus (Mar 4, 2018)

For Christs sake, before anyone gets into argument, just have a look at the damn specifications.

For example on this pan (I have this one) :
http://www.falkcoppercookware.com/signature/28cm-copper-saucier-pan-with-helper-handle/2569S1810


----------



## DamageInc (Mar 4, 2018)

Matus said:


> For Christs sake, before anyone gets into argument, just have a look at the damn specifications.
> 
> For example on this pan (I have this one) :
> http://www.falkcoppercookware.com/signature/28cm-copper-saucier-pan-with-helper-handle/2569S1810



Matus, I appreciate your efforts, but we are talking about 90/10 pans. The one you linked is 92/8 and is thus completely irrelevant.


----------



## Matus (Mar 4, 2018)

DamageInc said:


> Matus, I appreciate your efforts, but we are talking about 90/10 pans. The one you linked is 92/8 and is thus completely irrelevant.



... I am a complete failure, just like my mother in law said!


----------



## HRC_64 (Mar 5, 2018)

I was told there would be no math !


----------

