On 16 May 2004 22:17:07 -0700, (Rose Faex) wrote:

>Is there any sane reason to buy a copper pan with a nonstick surface?
>These are amazingly nice, but very expensive for what is fundamentally
>a disposable item.

Exactly. Stick (npi) with the non-stick aluminum -- the performance difference
is negligible. We have around 15 Mauviel copper pots and pans, and it has never
crossed my mind to buy one with a non-stick surface. I don't even recall ever
seeing one in Dehillerin in Paris.

-- Larry

Thanks for your thoughts. It's hard to get excited about such an
impractical idea, even if it would be a good performer.

> Exactly. Stick (npi) with the non-stick aluminum -- the performance difference
> is negligible.

Well, it's small, though not zero. 2.5mm copper definitely works
better than even the thickest aluminum. We use an assortment of
Mauviel, Bourgeat, and M.O.R.A. (the "other" store on rue Montmartre)
in a small catering activity, and they all do better than Calphalon
and All-Clad Masterchef for even heat (the M.O.R.A. is quite good, but
at 2.8mm thick, too heavy for comfortable flipping). It's still not
likely that the difference would make it worth spending the money,
when very good quality nonstick aluminum is available for very
reasonable prices.

We have around 15 Mauviel copper pots and pans, and it has never
> crossed my mind to buy one with a non-stick surface. I don't even recall ever
> seeing one in Dehillerin in Paris.

They might not have it in Dehillerin, but there are some other
commercial suppliers that carry it (search on google.fr for poêle
cuivre anti adhésif), and not even ridiculously expensive (around 100
euros - less than in the US, but that's no surprise). But it would not
feel right to have to toss a copper utensil after 10 years (which is
roughly what we get out of nonstick frypans with careful handling). I
found out that it may be possible to have the PTFE removed and have
the pan retinned, leaving you with a conventional tinned copper pan.
This isn't quite the waste of tossing it, but still not a pleasant
thought (and the tinning isn't cheap, either).

If I ever do decide to waste the money on one, I'll report on whether
it's better than my Calphalon nonstick for confit and other difficult
preparations.

Rose

I think you've answered your own question.

"Rose Faex" > wrote in message
om...
> Is there any sane reason to buy a copper pan with a nonstick surface?
> These are amazingly nice, but very expensive for what is fundamentally
> a disposable item.
>
> Some upscale restaurants in France use Mauviel's nonstick copper
> frypans (not too many, to be honest, though), and I actually have a
> good reason to want one: if you've ever made confit de canard, you
> know it can fall apart very easily in a normal pan, and that a
> nonstick surface helps a lot. But even heat distribution is also
> important, and a good thick aluminum nonstick pan is almost essential.
> Logic would say that copper would be even better (I have a decent set
> of stainless-lined copper, but don't use it for heating confit). Such
> a pan would also be excellent for a lot of other preparations (perfect
> omelettes and crepes become trivial).
>
> But while a decent nonstick aluminum pan can be bought for a modest
> price (or a lot, if you don't care about price), copper is always
> going to be expensive. A couple of websites have the Mauviel 11"
> (28cm) nonstick pan for around $200. This seems far too much to pay
> for a pan that you are absolutely going to end up throwing away.
>
> I'm not a dot-com billionaire, yet, and don't like the idea of
> disposable copper cookware. Does anyone else think that nonstick
> copper cookware is a bit absurd? Or is this just the best stuff there
> is, if you can afford to throw it away when its surface becomes
> unusable? Or is it possible the surface on the Mauviel pans is really
> different? (I can't see how it could be - it's advertised as
> Excalibur, which is just a decent PTFE-based nonstick surface).
>
> Thanks for your thoughts,
>
> Rose