I'm in the process of choosing copper cookware, and have been browsing
through relevant usenet groups and websites. Here's my issue: There are
a fair number of suppliers for copper cookware. As I understand it,
most professional, stainless lined pans are 2.5mm thick -- Falk, E.
Dehillerin, and others. However, the professional tinned lines seem to
vary much more in thickness. E. Dehillerin's line varies from 2mm to
3.5mm. Other suppliers, such as A. Simon, and MORA, don't give this
information. www.cunillexport.com (Mauviel?) confuses me further, with
1.5-3.5 for tin, and 2-3.5 for stainless.

Can anyone comment on the thickness of the copper cookware from various
suppliers? How significant are the differences? Which pans, or parts of
the pans, are getting the thinner copper?

Also, can anyone say which companies manufacture the pans the various
suppliers sell? Do pans made by the same manufacturer differ among
suppliers? I know Mauviel makes William Sonoma's store brand, and it is
(so far as I've heard) thinner than the standard Mauviel line.

I wouldn't mind recommendations for suppliers.

Thanks for any help,

John

On 28 Dec 2006 22:54:54 -0800, "ranson" > wrote:

>....most professional, stainless lined pans are 2.5mm thick -- Falk, E.
>Dehillerin, and others. However, the professional tinned lines seem to
>vary much more in thickness. E. Dehillerin's line varies from 2mm to
>3.5mm. Other suppliers, such as A. Simon, and MORA, don't give this
>information. www.cunillexport.com (Mauviel?) confuses me further, with
>1.5-3.5 for tin, and 2-3.5 for stainless.
>
>Can anyone comment on the thickness of the copper cookware from various
>suppliers? How significant are the differences? Which pans, or parts of
>the pans, are getting the thinner copper?

We have a number of Dehillerin pans, all stainless lined. The sauce
pans, windsor pans, saute pans, and fry pans are all a constant 2.5mm
thick and have cast iron handles.

The one exception is the monster ~14" saute pan, 3.5" deep, which is
thicker than the rest, but I've never thrown a micrometer or calipers
at it. It's got to be over 3mm thick.

We also have a couple of Dehillerin specialty pans, including an oval
fry pan and a large shallow saute pan (about a half inch deep,
specifically for desserts such as Bananas Foster). These are a
constant 1.8mm thick, and have brass handles.

The tinned pans from Dehillerin are a real steal (no pun intended),but
they don't come as thick as 2.5mm and you do need a source for
re-tinning. I have such a source locally (La Cuisine in Alexandria,
VA), but I just don't think these pans are worth the hassle of both
re-tinning and the extra care they require in use ( monitoring
pre-heating, avoiding scratching, etc.)

Heck, my most expensive Dehillerin copper/stainless pan, the monster
saute, cost less than just buying a a lid from the US sources for
Falk, Mauviel, etc. And that was before the VAT refund.

-- Larry

The impression that I got, when I visited Dehillerin a while back, was
that the tinned pans were actually heavier than the stainless lined
pans. Is my memory failing me?

John

pltrgyst wrote:
> On 28 Dec 2006 22:54:54 -0800, "ranson" > wrote:
>
> >....most professional, stainless lined pans are 2.5mm thick -- Falk, E.
> >Dehillerin, and others. However, the professional tinned lines seem to
> >vary much more in thickness. E. Dehillerin's line varies from 2mm to
> >3.5mm. Other suppliers, such as A. Simon, and MORA, don't give this
> >information. www.cunillexport.com (Mauviel?) confuses me further, with
> >1.5-3.5 for tin, and 2-3.5 for stainless.
> >
> >Can anyone comment on the thickness of the copper cookware from various
> >suppliers? How significant are the differences? Which pans, or parts of
> >the pans, are getting the thinner copper?
>
> We have a number of Dehillerin pans, all stainless lined. The sauce
> pans, windsor pans, saute pans, and fry pans are all a constant 2.5mm
> thick and have cast iron handles.
>
> The one exception is the monster ~14" saute pan, 3.5" deep, which is
> thicker than the rest, but I've never thrown a micrometer or calipers
> at it. It's got to be over 3mm thick.
>
> We also have a couple of Dehillerin specialty pans, including an oval
> fry pan and a large shallow saute pan (about a half inch deep,
> specifically for desserts such as Bananas Foster). These are a
> constant 1.8mm thick, and have brass handles.
>
> The tinned pans from Dehillerin are a real steal (no pun intended),but
> they don't come as thick as 2.5mm and you do need a source for
> re-tinning. I have such a source locally (La Cuisine in Alexandria,
> VA), but I just don't think these pans are worth the hassle of both
> re-tinning and the extra care they require in use ( monitoring
> pre-heating, avoiding scratching, etc.)
>
> Heck, my most expensive Dehillerin copper/stainless pan, the monster
> saute, cost less than just buying a a lid from the US sources for
> Falk, Mauviel, etc. And that was before the VAT refund.
>
> -- Larry

On 30 Dec 2006 20:58:31 -0800, "ranson" > wrote:

>The impression that I got, when I visited Dehillerin a while back, was
>that the tinned pans were actually heavier than the stainless lined
>pans. Is my memory failing me?

Whwn we were last there in January 2006, 2.3 mm was the heaviest tin
they had. But I see on their Web site just now that they're claiming
to offer tinned stock from 2.0 to 3.5 mm.

http://www.e-dehillerin.fr/en/cuprinox-extra-thick.php

-- Larry

In article . com>,
says...
> I'm in the process of choosing copper cookware, and have been browsing
> through relevant usenet groups and websites. Here's my issue: There are
> a fair number of suppliers for copper cookware. As I understand it,
> most professional, stainless lined pans are 2.5mm thick -- Falk, E.
> Dehillerin, and others. However, the professional tinned lines seem to
> vary much more in thickness. E. Dehillerin's line varies from 2mm to
> 3.5mm. Other suppliers, such as A. Simon, and MORA, don't give this
> information. www.cunillexport.com (Mauviel?) confuses me further, with
> 1.5-3.5 for tin, and 2-3.5 for stainless.
>
> Can anyone comment on the thickness of the copper cookware from various
> suppliers? How significant are the differences? Which pans, or parts of
> the pans, are getting the thinner copper?
>
> Also, can anyone say which companies manufacture the pans the various
> suppliers sell? Do pans made by the same manufacturer differ among
> suppliers? I know Mauviel makes William Sonoma's store brand, and it is
> (so far as I've heard) thinner than the standard Mauviel line.
>
> I wouldn't mind recommendations for suppliers.
>
> Thanks for any help,
>
> John
>
>


I did a lot of research on copper pans a few years ago and ended up with
Falk Culinair 2.5mm thick. A few observations that you may find useful:

- Forget about tinned pans. Tin offers no advantages and several
disadvantages compared with stainless.

- These pans are HEAVY! Keep this in mind when considering the thickness
of the copper. If my 12" skillet were 3.5mm I'd probably end up with my
arm in a brace!



--
Peter Aitken

On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:50:34 -0500, Peter A >
wrote:

>- Forget about tinned pans. Tin offers no advantages and several
>disadvantages compared with stainless.

I agree with your general point, but tin does offer two advantages: it
heats quicker than stainless steel, and it is cheaper. I don't think
the first is significant, but the second may be, if initial cash
outlay is critical to the buyer.

-- Larry

pltrgyst wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:50:34 -0500, Peter A >
> wrote:
>
>> - Forget about tinned pans. Tin offers no advantages and several
>> disadvantages compared with stainless.
>
> I agree with your general point, but tin does offer two advantages: it
> heats quicker than stainless steel, and it is cheaper. I don't think
> the first is significant, but the second may be, if initial cash
> outlay is critical to the buyer.
>

I understood that the lining on my better copper pans was nickel. I
nickel no longer used? If not, why not?

Matthew

--
I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

In article >, r
says...
> I understood that the lining on my better copper pans was nickel. I
> nickel no longer used? If not, why not?
>

I have never heard of nickle being used - stainless or tin. Perhaps you
are remembering wrong?

--
Peter Aitken

"Peter A" > wrote:
> In article >, r
> says...
>> I understood that the lining on my better copper pans was nickel. I
>> nickel no longer used? If not, why not?
>>
>
> I have never heard of nickle being used - stainless or tin. Perhaps you
> are remembering wrong?

I've run across nickel linings on occassion in sales literature, but I've
never seen it first hand. I'm not sure how it is applied. Tin linings are
applied after the item is fabricated. Tin melts at a low 450 degrees F, so
is essentially "brushed on" to the copper in a liquid state. I'm pretty sure
stainless linings are applied before the item is fabricated. A thick copper
sheet and a very thin stainless sheet are bonded together, then this two ply
sheet is formed to make the item.

Nickel certainly isn't applied the way tin is, as it's melting point is very
high by comparison. I don't know if it is applied the way stainless is, or
perhaps it is electroplated on.

Here's an example of a nickel lined copper pan:
http://www.frenchcookware.com/catalo...ia--660320.asp

I imagine with a nickel lining, if it is some kind of thin plating, it is
not "field repairable" like tin. There are places that can re-tin a copper
pan, but I've never heard of the equivalent for nickel. Maybe that's why
it's not so common. Nickel should be a lot more durable than tin though.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

In article >,
says...
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:50:34 -0500, Peter A >
> wrote:
>
> >- Forget about tinned pans. Tin offers no advantages and several
> >disadvantages compared with stainless.
>
> I agree with your general point, but tin does offer two advantages: it
> heats quicker than stainless steel, and it is cheaper. I don't think
> the first is significant, but the second may be, if initial cash
> outlay is critical to the buyer.
>
> -- Larry
>
>

I do not think the quicker heating is true. The layer is so thin that
any difference between the 2 metals would be irrelevant.

--
Peter Aitken