eac@drutx.UUCP (CveticEA) (12/17/84)
When choosing cookware-- keep in mind that different types will serve different purposes well, therefore it is seldom a good idea to buy ONLY one kind. For example--why pay a lot for a solid aluminum stock pot? Stainless steel does the job of boiling things for about half the price. When even heat distribution is important, such as in a skillet or a sauce pan that will be used for making thick sauces, then a heavier pan should be chosen. This not only makes good cooking sense, but it makes good budget sense as well. When choosing a pan that is heavy, or will contain heavy things, the sturdiness of the handle is extremely important. I refuse to buy cookware with a non-stick coating. It wears off no matter how good it is. My recommendations-- Frying pans--cast iron or good cast aluminum such as magnalite (sp?) Sauce pans--Farberware (stainless steel with a heavy aluminum bottom) or if you are really picky (and rich) buy magnalite. Stock pots--any quality stainless such as Revere ware. Roaster--Heavy treated aluminum or cast iron. Treated aluminum such as magnalite is important if you are going to use it for high acid foods. Cast iron is great, but very heavy. Keep the matching stuff for your table service. Matching cookware may seem nice but it doesn't always make sense. Betsy Cvetic ihnp4!drutx!eac
jj@alice.UUCP (12/17/84)
I must echo Cvetic on cookware. I find that Non stick is an oxymoron, given a few years. Farberware saucepans, stock pots, etc, are just find. For cooking candy and other VERY evenness senstitive things, I use a range of Club aluminium ware, it's slightly non-stick and it has very good heat properties. Magnalite/Calphalon and the like are indeed wonderful, fantastic, and utterly overpriced. Their pricing schemes are as insulting as Cuisinart's former prices. For frying pans, USE CAST IRON. There's no substitute. For a wok, use a good stainless aluminium bottomed fry pan, if you have an electric stove, and buy a CHEAP wok for gas. Roasting pans are best stainless, I think, I don't trust aluminium with anything acid. I guess my own feeling is that the price of good cookware isn't necessarily high. The "set" concept is utterly ridiculous EXCEPT that the sets often offer a price advantage. My advice: Get a large Farberware set (without the mixing pans), and a 12 at (or 16 if you need that) stockpot. If you do a lot of full dinners, buy another three qt and two qt saucepan. Get an additional 3 qt Club aluminium saucepan, Use it for candymaking, etc. IF you do a lot of that sort of stuff, get two, or look into a set. Get a good 8" and 12" cast iron frypan (they go for cheap!) Get a cheap wok, and IGNORE electric woks/ SEason the iron very carefully. Then, eat, and go on a diet.
macrakis@harvard.ARPA (Stavros Macrakis) (12/20/84)
I've been very happy with my copper pots, some tin-lined, some nickel-lined, and some stainless-steel lined. They're not obsolete, they're classic! The advantages of copper are 1. Excellent conductivity; 2. Beauty; 3. Sturdiness. By now, everyone on this newsgroup knows about copper's great advantage in conductivity. An old copper pot has a patina and character which you will find in no stainless or Calphalon pot (indeed, with stainless, you get scratches with time which kill its initial gleam, and with Calphalon, various funny non-scratches). Copper is harder than aluminum, and presumably sturdier, although somehow I doubt my (good) aluminum pots will fall apart long before my grandchildren inherit them. Farberware (ordinary) and the like will, I suspect. The main problems with copper are 1. Loss of lining; 2. Time to polish; 3. Price. The lining is the main problem. So far, after some years with my pots, I haven't needed to reline; but it costs and is hard to find. Anyway, the NY Times claimed last year that exposed copper in pots will only poison you under very special circumstances (food left standing; highly acid foods). I prefer the patina of unpolished copper, so I have no problem here. Price is indeed a problem. Good pans should be at least 1.5mm thick, and such pans are fairly expensive. Don't buy thin Made-in-Korea copper; it's cheap but no good for cooking. Copper pots are much cheaper in Europe than here, presumably because they're more common and are marketed for their utility more than their snob value. (This is true, by the way, for almost all cooking equipment these days, given the exchange rates. I bought a Wusthof 10" chef's knife at a kitchen supply store in Brussels (rue du Boucher for those passing through) for about $20 vs. $50-65 here; a mandoline for $40 vs. $90-120.) My most recent copper pots are stainless-lined, which I consider to be the ideal combination. Stainless is almost non-stick, is quite hard, is ... well ... stain-less. Regrettably, one of the major importers (Bourgeat) is closing out its stainless-lined copper line because, they say, cheap thin copper drove them out. Be on the lookout for sales. Don't think that I run an all-copper kitchen! I see no reason to get a copper stockpot or potato-boiling pot or steamer until I'm fairly rich. Aluminum's just fine. And for many recipes, cast iron makes a good skillet and dutch oven.
greg@olivej.UUCP (12/20/84)
I agree in general with Betsy Cvetic's cookware recommendations. For sauces, casseroles, dishes to be braised, and general dishes which require longer cooking periods over a medium heat rather than brief cooking over a very high heat, I like enamelized cast-iron. Of this, I have a number of "Le Creuset" pieces that I've had for nearly 4 years now and have found very good. In terms of non-stick cookware, I agree that it all wears off sooner or later but I accept that. It means to me that I'll have to recycle these pieces more often. I still find them very valuable, particularly for such things as a potato galette (shredded potatoes cooked in somewhat the form of a large, flat pancake). With a non-stick skillet, after half the cooking time is up I can pick up the skillet and with a light toss flip over the entire thing to cook the other side. The Magnalite recommendation is also a good one. I find it excellent for roasting, and also find that it is better than most roasting pans for transferring to the stove, if you want to incorporate the drippings which have browned onto the pan in your sauce (AFTER degreasing, please). - Greg Paley
marcum@rhino.UUCP (Alan M. Marcum) (12/21/84)
I have a set of waterless cookware, made of surgical-grade
stainless steel. I really enjoy cooking with the stuff,
especially vegetables. You cook over low heat, adding almost no
water (sometimes none at all). The water in the food escapes,
and the pots are designed so that a water-seal forms. The
nutrients remain in the food without getting washed out or
destroyed by excess heat. There's also a frying pan as part of
the set; one can fry chicken without additional grease. In
addition, the food tastes GREAT. My set is 20 pieces, costing
about $450 or so (yes, I know, similar sets often sell for $700-900).
I still prefer a cast-iron skillet for scrambling eggs, though,
but for almost everything else, give me my waterless.
--
Alan M. Marcum Fortune Systems, Redwood City, California
...!{ihnp4, ucbvax!amd, hpda, sri-unix, harpo}!fortune!rhino!marcumreid@Glacier.ARPA (12/21/84)
As usual, Betsy Cvetic is right. Different kinds of pans for different purposes. I am partial to ultra-heavy (40-pound) copper frying pans and enamelware stockpots and roasters. If I didn't use copper frying pans I would use cast iron. One caveat--there is a large but not universally accepted body of recent scientific evidence that the ingestion of aluminum is related to Alzheimer's disease (a degenerative brain disorder). Specifically, there is incontrovertible evidence that persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease have an unusually high level of aluminum in their brains, and there is conjecture that this high level of aluminum is caused by dietary aluminum. Calphalon is a surface-treated aluminum alloy. The documentation that comes with it says that the treating reduces the chemical reactions and the leaching of aluminum into the food. I remain skeptical. Brian Reid decwrl!glacier!reid Reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA Stanford