Does anyone know if the Calphalon Commerical HARD-ANODIZED is the type of
Calphalon's pans that do NOT have the non-stick glaze on them, and are a bit
heavier. Well, they SEEM a bit heavier. I seem to remember that the
HARD-ANODIZED
skillets like to stick and seasoning doesn't help- perhaps it is not the
actual Calphalon brand, but the NSF brand.
Thanks,
dee

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:49:05 -0500, "Dee Randall"
<deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote:

>Does anyone know if the Calphalon Commerical HARD-ANODIZED is the type of
>Calphalon's pans that do NOT have the non-stick glaze on them, and are a bit
>heavier. Well, they SEEM a bit heavier. I seem to remember that the
>HARD-ANODIZED
>skillets like to stick and seasoning doesn't help- perhaps it is not the
>actual Calphalon brand, but the NSF brand.
>Thanks,
>dee
>
Correct. The hard anodized surface is non-reactive, i.e., it does not
react with normally acidic foods, but it is not non-stick.

"Leonard Lehew" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:49:05 -0500, "Dee Randall"
> <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote:
>
>>Does anyone know if the Calphalon Commerical HARD-ANODIZED is the type of
>>Calphalon's pans that do NOT have the non-stick glaze on them, and are a
>>bit
>>heavier. Well, they SEEM a bit heavier. I seem to remember that the
>>HARD-ANODIZED
>>skillets like to stick and seasoning doesn't help- perhaps it is not the
>>actual Calphalon brand, but the NSF brand.
>>Thanks,
>>dee
>>
> Correct. The hard anodized surface is non-reactive, i.e., it does not
> react with normally acidic foods, but it is not non-stick.

Thanks.
I'm speaking here below only of pans that are NOT non-stick:
Is there any reason one would purchase a hard-anodized pot; i.e. 4 qt.
pot/pan , vs. a heavy stainless steel 4 qt. pot/pan like the Cuisinart or
Kirkland heavy-duty pans/pots.
I use mostly non-stick now, so I'm interested in the virtues of
hard-anodized vs. the heavy-duty stainless.
Thanks so much.
Dee

"Leonard Lehew" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:49:05 -0500, "Dee Randall"
> <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone know if the Calphalon Commerical HARD-ANODIZED is the type of
> >Calphalon's pans that do NOT have the non-stick glaze on them, and are a
bit
> >heavier. Well, they SEEM a bit heavier. I seem to remember that the
> >HARD-ANODIZED
> >skillets like to stick and seasoning doesn't help- perhaps it is not the
> >actual Calphalon brand, but the NSF brand.
> >Thanks,
> >dee
> >
> Correct. The hard anodized surface is non-reactive, i.e., it does not
> react with normally acidic foods, but it is not non-stick.

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but I was told by a clerk in a cookware store
that anodized aluminum is less reactive, but not totally non-reactive.
Anyone have an opinion? I wouldn't buy the stuff simply because you can't
put it in the dishwashers.

"Leonard Lehew" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:49:05 -0500, "Dee Randall"
> <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone know if the Calphalon Commerical HARD-ANODIZED is the type of
> >Calphalon's pans that do NOT have the non-stick glaze on them, and are a
bit
> >heavier. Well, they SEEM a bit heavier. I seem to remember that the
> >HARD-ANODIZED
> >skillets like to stick and seasoning doesn't help- perhaps it is not the
> >actual Calphalon brand, but the NSF brand.
> >Thanks,
> >dee
> >
> Correct. The hard anodized surface is non-reactive, i.e., it does not
> react with normally acidic foods, but it is not non-stick.

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but I was told by a clerk in a cookware store
that anodized aluminum is less reactive, but not totally non-reactive.
Anyone have an opinion? I wouldn't buy the stuff simply because you can't
put it in the dishwashers.

"Dee Randall" <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote in message
...
>
> Thanks.
> I'm speaking here below only of pans that are NOT non-stick:
> Is there any reason one would purchase a hard-anodized pot; i.e. 4 qt.
> pot/pan , vs. a heavy stainless steel 4 qt. pot/pan like the Cuisinart or
> Kirkland heavy-duty pans/pots.
> I use mostly non-stick now, so I'm interested in the virtues of
> hard-anodized vs. the heavy-duty stainless.
> Thanks so much.
> Dee

Having started out in my cookware adventures many moons ago with Calphalon
on our wedding list, I wouldn't buy it now if I can get tri-ply stainless
for a similar price. The dark finish of anodized give you less visual
feedback on what's happening in the pan. Although neither finish is
non-stick, I get much better results and clean-up from stainless. Finally,
I've found that over the years the anodized coating wears off, leaving bare
aluminum. It's not a big deal, but nevertheless I don't like it. I still
use some of my original Calphalon (mainly my 5 Qt. Dutch oven), but most of
my collection has long since gone to storage or yard sales.

Remsleep

"Dee Randall" <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote in message
...
>
> Thanks.
> I'm speaking here below only of pans that are NOT non-stick:
> Is there any reason one would purchase a hard-anodized pot; i.e. 4 qt.
> pot/pan , vs. a heavy stainless steel 4 qt. pot/pan like the Cuisinart or
> Kirkland heavy-duty pans/pots.
> I use mostly non-stick now, so I'm interested in the virtues of
> hard-anodized vs. the heavy-duty stainless.
> Thanks so much.
> Dee

Having started out in my cookware adventures many moons ago with Calphalon
on our wedding list, I wouldn't buy it now if I can get tri-ply stainless
for a similar price. The dark finish of anodized give you less visual
feedback on what's happening in the pan. Although neither finish is
non-stick, I get much better results and clean-up from stainless. Finally,
I've found that over the years the anodized coating wears off, leaving bare
aluminum. It's not a big deal, but nevertheless I don't like it. I still
use some of my original Calphalon (mainly my 5 Qt. Dutch oven), but most of
my collection has long since gone to storage or yard sales.

Remsleep

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:35:20 -0500, "Dee Randall"
<deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote:
>Thanks.
>I'm speaking here below only of pans that are NOT non-stick:
>Is there any reason one would purchase a hard-anodized pot; i.e. 4 qt.
>pot/pan , vs. a heavy stainless steel 4 qt. pot/pan like the Cuisinart or
>Kirkland heavy-duty pans/pots.
>I use mostly non-stick now, so I'm interested in the virtues of
>hard-anodized vs. the heavy-duty stainless.
>Thanks so much.
>Dee
>
They have somewhat different cooking characteristics. Aluminum is a
much better conductor of heat than stainless steel. That is why
premium stainless cookware uses a layered construction. I must admit
that I use my Calphalon mostly for stuff like boiling water for pasta.
A bare aluminum pot would work just as well, and it is much less
expensive.

No cookware is "best" for everything. A good compromise for most
purposes is aluminum cookware with a thin stainless lining like All
Clad Master Chef. The All Clad Limited line has a hard anodized
coating on the outside. It cost a lot more than Master Chef. The
anodized coating on the outside is strictly for appearance. All Clad
Stainless is a sandwich constuction with stainless on the outside and
inside. The stainless on the outside is for appearance and actually
reduces cooking performance a bit.

There are many good brands other than All Clad, of course, but the
construction tends to follow the same patterns.

I do prefer stainless cookware (again, like All Clad) that has a layer
of aluminum around the entire vessel. Cuisinart, for example is
stainless with a copper sandwich on the bottom only. These pots tend
to have a thicker layer of stainless (hence generally poorer
conductivity), and I have observed more of a tendency for things to
burn near the edges of the conductive sandwich underneath.

I have accumulate a lot of cookware over the years of almost every
type you can imagine. I haven't found anything that is ideal for
everything.

Cheers,

Leonard

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:35:20 -0500, "Dee Randall"
<deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote:
>Thanks.
>I'm speaking here below only of pans that are NOT non-stick:
>Is there any reason one would purchase a hard-anodized pot; i.e. 4 qt.
>pot/pan , vs. a heavy stainless steel 4 qt. pot/pan like the Cuisinart or
>Kirkland heavy-duty pans/pots.
>I use mostly non-stick now, so I'm interested in the virtues of
>hard-anodized vs. the heavy-duty stainless.
>Thanks so much.
>Dee
>
They have somewhat different cooking characteristics. Aluminum is a
much better conductor of heat than stainless steel. That is why
premium stainless cookware uses a layered construction. I must admit
that I use my Calphalon mostly for stuff like boiling water for pasta.
A bare aluminum pot would work just as well, and it is much less
expensive.

No cookware is "best" for everything. A good compromise for most
purposes is aluminum cookware with a thin stainless lining like All
Clad Master Chef. The All Clad Limited line has a hard anodized
coating on the outside. It cost a lot more than Master Chef. The
anodized coating on the outside is strictly for appearance. All Clad
Stainless is a sandwich constuction with stainless on the outside and
inside. The stainless on the outside is for appearance and actually
reduces cooking performance a bit.

There are many good brands other than All Clad, of course, but the
construction tends to follow the same patterns.

I do prefer stainless cookware (again, like All Clad) that has a layer
of aluminum around the entire vessel. Cuisinart, for example is
stainless with a copper sandwich on the bottom only. These pots tend
to have a thicker layer of stainless (hence generally poorer
conductivity), and I have observed more of a tendency for things to
burn near the edges of the conductive sandwich underneath.

I have accumulate a lot of cookware over the years of almost every
type you can imagine. I haven't found anything that is ideal for
everything.

Cheers,

Leonard

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 02:33:20 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
wrote:

>
>
>Maybe this is splitting hairs, but I was told by a clerk in a cookware store
>that anodized aluminum is less reactive, but not totally non-reactive.
>Anyone have an opinion? I wouldn't buy the stuff simply because you can't
>put it in the dishwashers.
>
That's true, but for most practical purposes it is non-reactive. Even
stainless steel is not totally non-reactive. You are correct that the
harsh chemical in automatic dishwash detergent with damage the
anodized coating. Not a problem for me, because I never put any
cookware in the dishwasher.

Hard anodized aluminum was relatively a better option 15-20 year ago.
Today, there are a lot of options available that I think are better
for general cooking. As I said elsewhere, there is no type of cookware
that is ideal for every cooking application. Every type of cookware
construction involves trade offs between heat conductivity, tendency
to react with foods, sticking, ease of cleaning, flexibility of use
(can you use high heat or put it in the oven, for example), cost,
appearance, and many other factors.

Cheers,

Leonard

I've got a vaiety of both sorts of Calphalon, and don't much like any of
it except for boiling water. The "non-stick" surface is a joke, stuff
sticks to it second only to the "sticky" Calphalon.

I agree with previous posters that there is no one optimal material for
pots and pans. I've gotten to a relatively small set that serves me very
well, even if it does look a bit tatty. My good frying pans and dutch
oven are 100-year-old cast iron and are the most non-sticky pans I own
or have ever seen. I have a spun-steel wok that I got for under $10
that, with 20 years of seasoning is beginning to approach the quality of
the frying pans. Newer All-clad saute pans give better temperature
control than the cast iron when that is important, and about three
different "spaghetti pots" (including my mother's RevereWare) that
perform indistinguishably as steamers and pots for boiling stuff in.
Sauce pan roles are filled by an old pressure cooker, All-clad and
Calphalon pots that all work fine. I do like the glass lids that came
with the Calphalon non-stick saucepans.

Roger

I've got a vaiety of both sorts of Calphalon, and don't much like any of
it except for boiling water. The "non-stick" surface is a joke, stuff
sticks to it second only to the "sticky" Calphalon.

I agree with previous posters that there is no one optimal material for
pots and pans. I've gotten to a relatively small set that serves me very
well, even if it does look a bit tatty. My good frying pans and dutch
oven are 100-year-old cast iron and are the most non-sticky pans I own
or have ever seen. I have a spun-steel wok that I got for under $10
that, with 20 years of seasoning is beginning to approach the quality of
the frying pans. Newer All-clad saute pans give better temperature
control than the cast iron when that is important, and about three
different "spaghetti pots" (including my mother's RevereWare) that
perform indistinguishably as steamers and pots for boiling stuff in.
Sauce pan roles are filled by an old pressure cooker, All-clad and
Calphalon pots that all work fine. I do like the glass lids that came
with the Calphalon non-stick saucepans.

Roger

"Leonard Lehew" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:35:20 -0500, "Dee Randall"
> <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote:
>>Thanks.
>>I'm speaking here below only of pans that are NOT non-stick:
>>Is there any reason one would purchase a hard-anodized pot; i.e. 4 qt.
>>pot/pan , vs. a heavy stainless steel 4 qt. pot/pan like the Cuisinart or
>>Kirkland heavy-duty pans/pots.
>>I use mostly non-stick now, so I'm interested in the virtues of
>>hard-anodized vs. the heavy-duty stainless.
>>Thanks so much.
>>Dee
>>
> They have somewhat different cooking characteristics. Aluminum is a
> much better conductor of heat than stainless steel. That is why
> premium stainless cookware uses a layered construction. I must admit
> that I use my Calphalon mostly for stuff like boiling water for pasta.
> A bare aluminum pot would work just as well, and it is much less
> expensive.
>
> No cookware is "best" for everything. A good compromise for most
> purposes is aluminum cookware with a thin stainless lining like All
> Clad Master Chef. The All Clad Limited line has a hard anodized
> coating on the outside. It cost a lot more than Master Chef. The
> anodized coating on the outside is strictly for appearance. All Clad
> Stainless is a sandwich constuction with stainless on the outside and
> inside. The stainless on the outside is for appearance and actually
> reduces cooking performance a bit.
>
> There are many good brands other than All Clad, of course, but the
> construction tends to follow the same patterns.
>
> I do prefer stainless cookware (again, like All Clad) that has a layer
> of aluminum around the entire vessel. Cuisinart, for example is
> stainless with a copper sandwich on the bottom only. These pots tend
> to have a thicker layer of stainless (hence generally poorer
> conductivity), and I have observed more of a tendency for things to
> burn near the edges of the conductive sandwich underneath.
>
> I have accumulate a lot of cookware over the years of almost every
> type you can imagine. I haven't found anything that is ideal for
> everything.
>

I second this heartily. I probably have one or two of every kind of pan
known to man ranging from expensive French copper to cheapo aluminum
restaurant ware (yes I am a kitchen equipment junkie!) and I use them all at
one time or another.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Leonard Lehew" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:35:20 -0500, "Dee Randall"
> <deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote:
>>Thanks.
>>I'm speaking here below only of pans that are NOT non-stick:
>>Is there any reason one would purchase a hard-anodized pot; i.e. 4 qt.
>>pot/pan , vs. a heavy stainless steel 4 qt. pot/pan like the Cuisinart or
>>Kirkland heavy-duty pans/pots.
>>I use mostly non-stick now, so I'm interested in the virtues of
>>hard-anodized vs. the heavy-duty stainless.
>>Thanks so much.
>>Dee
>>
> They have somewhat different cooking characteristics. Aluminum is a
> much better conductor of heat than stainless steel. That is why
> premium stainless cookware uses a layered construction. I must admit
> that I use my Calphalon mostly for stuff like boiling water for pasta.
> A bare aluminum pot would work just as well, and it is much less
> expensive.
>
> No cookware is "best" for everything. A good compromise for most
> purposes is aluminum cookware with a thin stainless lining like All
> Clad Master Chef. The All Clad Limited line has a hard anodized
> coating on the outside. It cost a lot more than Master Chef. The
> anodized coating on the outside is strictly for appearance. All Clad
> Stainless is a sandwich constuction with stainless on the outside and
> inside. The stainless on the outside is for appearance and actually
> reduces cooking performance a bit.
>
> There are many good brands other than All Clad, of course, but the
> construction tends to follow the same patterns.
>
> I do prefer stainless cookware (again, like All Clad) that has a layer
> of aluminum around the entire vessel. Cuisinart, for example is
> stainless with a copper sandwich on the bottom only. These pots tend
> to have a thicker layer of stainless (hence generally poorer
> conductivity), and I have observed more of a tendency for things to
> burn near the edges of the conductive sandwich underneath.
>
> I have accumulate a lot of cookware over the years of almost every
> type you can imagine. I haven't found anything that is ideal for
> everything.
>

I second this heartily. I probably have one or two of every kind of pan
known to man ranging from expensive French copper to cheapo aluminum
restaurant ware (yes I am a kitchen equipment junkie!) and I use them all at
one time or another.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:15:41 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

>
>I second this heartily. I probably have one or two of every kind of pan
>known to man ranging from expensive French copper to cheapo aluminum
>restaurant ware (yes I am a kitchen equipment junkie!) and I use them all at
>one time or another.
Peter,

That was so funny to read. "Kitchen equipment junkie" describes me
very well, too! Anodized aluminum, bare aluminum, aluminum/stainless;
copper/stainless; cast iron; enameled cast iron; tinned copper. You
name it, I've got it, and I use it.

The only thing I'm more excessive about is cutlery, but that's another
topic!

Cheers,

Leonard

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:24:12 GMT, Leonard Lehew
> wrote:

>That was so funny to read. "Kitchen equipment junkie" describes me
>very well, too! Anodized aluminum, bare aluminum, aluminum/stainless;
>copper/stainless; cast iron; enameled cast iron; tinned copper. You
>name it, I've got it, and I use it.

I wouldn't describe myself as a "junkie"...but every pot and pan has a
specific use. I would no more cook a pot of pinto beans in a thin
alumimun pot than I would cook tomatoes in my cast iron dutch oven.