On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:22:30 -0800, "Kent" > wrote:

>Dee, I don't own All-Clad, but I am somewhat an equipment junkie, and I have
>two problems with All-Clad.
>1. None of their cookware has a pouring lip. When you want to pour a
>small amount from either a saucepan or a skillet, you can't do it drop by
>drop.

Who needs lips? That's what ladles and spoons are for.

>2. I don't think it makes any sense to have either aluminum or copper on
>the vertical sides of a saucepan. Saucepans get heated directly, by the heat
>source below.

So does every other pot or pan. The experts (Cooks Illustrated and others) seem
to think that only saucepans and realated items (Windsor pans, etc.) benefit
from clad sides, and that they're of no benefit on fry pans, saute pans, and
stock pots.

>The extra weight and heft of the fully clad cookware is something I wouldn't want.

Hmmm, what's the difference between weight and heft? IMO any difference in
weight is negligible or negative, since all-stainless side walls are probably
heavier than clad sidewalls.

>3. Copper clad is much better than aluminum clad, if you can find the
>former, as copper is a much better conductor of heat than aluminum.

Are you referring to "copper clad," (like the All Clad line, with aluminum clad
in stainless with an outer copper layer) or "clad copper," like the Cuisinart
line with a copper disk clad with stainless?

"Copper clad" is generally for looks only -- the copper cladding is so thin as
to be functionally non-existent. "Clad copper" has measurable advantages, but
they are dependent on the thickness of the disk. For most of what's available,
aluminum is a close enough conductor that the benefit is negligible.

True copper cookware, lined with either tin or stainless, is required to see any
real-world benefit over stainless-clad, thick aluminum.

-- Larry (not a real All Clad fan either, but do own some pieces...)