In another post a writer said they were getting a 30' Heartland
cooktop. It has four burners with a max output of only 15,500 BTU.
And it looks like real professional model. It costs an amazing $1550.

I fully understand why someone would want a professional range with
BTU output of 30 - 50,000 BTU. I fact, I am getting a separate wok
burner with 30,000BTU output for the same price.

But every appliance store I go into has these fake/pseudo professional
ranges with no more BTU power than "home-looking ranges at 3 to 10
times the cost of a regular stove range. The highest BTU burner I
could find on any of these fakes was 17,500. You can get that on
"regular range" models.

Are these folks just looking for the thrill of adding something "cool"
(it's sure not "hot") to their McMansions?

What am I missing?


_____
"How I wish that somewhere there existed an island for
those who are wise and of good will."
Albert Einstein
_____

Cape Cod Bob
Visit my web site at http://home.comcast.net/~bobmethelis
Delete the two "spam"s for email

"Cape Cod Bob" > wrote in message
...
> In another post a writer said they were getting a 30' Heartland
> cooktop. It has four burners with a max output of only 15,500 BTU.
> And it looks like real professional model. It costs an amazing $1550.
>
> I fully understand why someone would want a professional range with
> BTU output of 30 - 50,000 BTU. I fact, I am getting a separate wok
> burner with 30,000BTU output for the same price.
>
> But every appliance store I go into has these fake/pseudo professional
> ranges with no more BTU power than "home-looking ranges at 3 to 10
> times the cost of a regular stove range. The highest BTU burner I
> could find on any of these fakes was 17,500. You can get that on
> "regular range" models.
>
> Are these folks just looking for the thrill of adding something "cool"
> (it's sure not "hot") to their McMansions?
>
> What am I missing?
>

Some of those "pseudo-professional" ranges are in fact excellent ranges but
as you note they are nothing like a real professional range that you'd find
is a restaurant kitchen. Of course the look is the main selling point.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

It's a style thing. Manufacturers are simply offering a look that
goes beyond just color. A professional look can be very effective in
a modern kitchen. I don't believe that any of these are actually
being marketed as professional ('commercial') equipment. It's
unlikely that a professional would buy one of these with the idea of
using it in a commercial application - look at the specs. You might
see names like "Pro-Style", "Professional Series", etc. on these
models and I'll grant that some of these names might be misleading,
but they're strictly referring to cosmetics.

Cape Cod Bob > wrote in message >. ..
> In another post a writer said they were getting a 30' Heartland
> cooktop. It has four burners with a max output of only 15,500 BTU.
> And it looks like real professional model. It costs an amazing $1550.
>
> I fully understand why someone would want a professional range with
> BTU output of 30 - 50,000 BTU. I fact, I am getting a separate wok
> burner with 30,000BTU output for the same price.
>
> But every appliance store I go into has these fake/pseudo professional
> ranges with no more BTU power than "home-looking ranges at 3 to 10
> times the cost of a regular stove range. The highest BTU burner I
> could find on any of these fakes was 17,500. You can get that on
> "regular range" models.
>
> Are these folks just looking for the thrill of adding something "cool"
> (it's sure not "hot") to their McMansions?
>
> What am I missing?
>
>
> _____
> "How I wish that somewhere there existed an island for
> those who are wise and of good will."
> Albert Einstein
> _____
>
> Cape Cod Bob
> Visit my web site at http://home.comcast.net/~bobmethelis
> Delete the two "spam"s for email

(Mike Hartigan) writes:

>You might see names like "Pro-Style", "Professional Series", etc. on these
>models and I'll grant that some of these names might be misleading,
>but they're strictly referring to cosmetics.

It goes beyond cosmetics. There are features and options on those ranges
that aren't always available on other models: dual ovens, dual fuel,
more than 4 burners, built in grill, built in griddle. If you want a
48" range with several of the above in it, you're probably not going
to be buying it at Sears or Best Buy.

But you're correct that they aren't commercial equipment. It is worth
noting that true commercial restaurant ranges may have far fewer 'features'
than those 'pro-style' ranges. That's because a working restaurant kitchen
is going to have a separate appliance for those purposes, such as a
mandolin, grill or griddle. But unless you make pancakes for 50 regularly,
what do you need an 18" X 24" griddle surface for? :-)
--
Mike Nolan

"Mike Nolan" > wrote in message
...
> (Mike Hartigan) writes:
>
> >You might see names like "Pro-Style", "Professional Series", etc. on
these
> >models and I'll grant that some of these names might be misleading,
> >but they're strictly referring to cosmetics.
>
> It goes beyond cosmetics. There are features and options on those ranges
> that aren't always available on other models: dual ovens, dual fuel,
> more than 4 burners, built in grill, built in griddle. If you want a
> 48" range with several of the above in it, you're probably not going
> to be buying it at Sears or Best Buy.
>
> But you're correct that they aren't commercial equipment. It is worth
> noting that true commercial restaurant ranges may have far fewer
'features'
> than those 'pro-style' ranges. That's because a working restaurant
kitchen
> is going to have a separate appliance for those purposes, such as a
> mandolin, grill or griddle. But unless you make pancakes for 50
regularly,
> what do you need an 18" X 24" griddle surface for? :-)
> --

Just for the record, Sears sells just about every appliance in production.
They have the pseudo-commercial units like Wolfe, Garland, Viking, GE
Monogram, Sub Zero, and so on, in their Great Indoor stores

"Cape Cod Bob" > wrote in message
...
> But every appliance store I go into has these fake/pseudo professional
> ranges with no more BTU power than "home-looking ranges at 3 to 10
> times the cost of a regular stove range. The highest BTU burner I
> could find on any of these fakes was 17,500. You can get that on
> "regular range" models.
>
> Are these folks just looking for the thrill of adding something "cool"
> (it's sure not "hot") to their McMansions?
>
> What am I missing?

Bob,

You aren't missing much, but the step up in features to the
"professional-style" range isn't in sync with the price jump. There are
distinct advantages to a pro-style range - for the one I'm looking at (Blue
Star 36"), there's 18,000 BTU burners, six burners total, all stainless
steel, infrared broiler, ability to hold a full sheet pan (the 30" Blue Star
will hold a full sheet pan as well). All nice features notwithstanding, the
difference between a $1200-$1500 "home" style range and the $4000++ for the
"pro" style is a big jump in $$. So what does one get for that extra money?

It's generally a matter of style more than anything else. Why skimp on the
big range when you have the $5000 built-in fridge and the $2000 dishwasher
and the $50,000 worth of granite and cherry and stainless everything?

Having wrote all that - I've used several true commercial ranges, mostly
Garlands, and I have not found there to be too much of a difference in
performance between the units made for a commercial kitchen and the ones
made for a home kitchen. The price difference comes in the safety features
and insulation built in. A good commercial range can be had for half or
less of a home version, but the installation requirements are significantly
different, and the manufacturer usually will NOT warranty a home install of
a commercial unit. Even the pros have separate salamanders, flat tops,
griddles and wok burners sitting right alongside their commercial ranges.

I have a fairly standard glass-top GE range at home right now, and it's sad
that I can't use a wok or griddle with any degree of success. I'm springing
for the commercial style range in my new house (not a McMansion by any
means) because I want the six burners, the broiler, and the capacity. I'm
saving by putting a much cheaper (but the largest one they make) Amana
bottom-freezer unit in the kitchen, and getting a middle-of-the-road
dishwasher that does one thing well - wash the dishes.

Jon E

Peter Aitken wrote:

> "Cape Cod Bob" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In another post a writer said they were getting a 30' Heartland
>>cooktop. It has four burners with a max output of only 15,500 BTU.
>>And it looks like real professional model. It costs an amazing $1550.
>>
>>I fully understand why someone would want a professional range with
>>BTU output of 30 - 50,000 BTU. I fact, I am getting a separate wok
>>burner with 30,000BTU output for the same price.
>>
>>But every appliance store I go into has these fake/pseudo professional
>>ranges with no more BTU power than "home-looking ranges at 3 to 10
>>times the cost of a regular stove range. The highest BTU burner I
>>could find on any of these fakes was 17,500. You can get that on
>>"regular range" models.
>>
>>Are these folks just looking for the thrill of adding something "cool"
>>(it's sure not "hot") to their McMansions?
>>
>>What am I missing?
>>
>
>
> Some of those "pseudo-professional" ranges are in fact excellent ranges but
> as you note they are nothing like a real professional range that you'd find
> is a restaurant kitchen. Of course the look is the main selling point.
>
>
But why someone would buy a range that is not self cleaning is beyond
me. One reason there is no need for them in restaurants is the
availability of extremely cheap labor to keep them clean. Why someone
would want to clean their home ranges is beyond me.
--
Alan

"If you reject the food, ignore the customs, fear the religion, and
avoid the people, you might better stay home."
--James Michener

"Fresh Monniker" > wrote in message
...
> "Jon Endres, PE" t>
> wrote:
>
> >You aren't missing much, but the step up in features to the
> >"professional-style" range isn't in sync with the price jump.
>
> If this were true, then you or someone would be able to start a very
> profitable company to vastly undercut all those overpriced companies
> out there and dominate the market for nice high quality ranges at a
> reasonable price.

Maybe. However I don't think that the target market for professional-look
residential ranges would buy an inexpensive knock-off, no matter how good.
Just like they wouldn't park a Hyundai in the driveway even it was equal to
a BMW. That name badge glued to the front of the range is at least as
important and the quarter ton of stainless and cast iron.

I just toured the local Homarama. There were about 16 homes ranging from
$900K to $2 million. I thought the kitchens were unimpressive for homes of
that price range. The homes under $1 million had KitchenAid appliances.
The upper-end homes had Wolfe or Viking. None had more than one dishwasher.
I didn't see any compactors. One had a built-in ice maker. A few had
refrigerator drawer in the wet bar. Far too many had cooktops in islands
with telescoping downdraft vents. I guess for $2 million dollars I expected
something akin a catering kitchen. I got the idea that the kitchens were
purely for display.

"Fresh Monniker" > wrote in message
...
> "Jon Endres, PE" t>
> wrote:
>
> >You aren't missing much, but the step up in features to the
> >"professional-style" range isn't in sync with the price jump.
>
> If this were true, then you or someone would be able to start a very
> profitable company to vastly undercut all those overpriced companies
> out there and dominate the market for nice high quality ranges at a
> reasonable price.

I'm not so sure. A typical commercial range is in the price range of $1500
to
$2500. The home models that look like them only have some additional
insulation to prevent them from burning up wood cabinets. I doubt
insulation could suddenly make these ranges cost 3 times as much.

The issue is probably volume. I don't have numbers but I would suspect that
$6000 and up ranges are a fairly small percentage of the total marketplace.
So, in order to maintain production one must market the products as luxury
products and get an appropriate price since large scale production isn't an
option. I think the market for $3000 ranges is probably a pretty small
percentage of the business as well so cranking up production to address such
a small market at, say, half the price is probably a money losing
proposition.

Obviously the manufacturers of commercial ranges make a profit at much lower
prices. One would suspect, then, that the marketplace for ranges of this
type in commercial establishments is way, way larger than it is for the
consumer marketplace.

Fred
The Good Gourmet
http://www.thegoodgourmet.com

> Think again. Remember back when they laughed at the notion of a
> $40,000 *Japanese* car? Lexus was a joke until people drove it. Now,
> you can buy a $70,000 VW!

That would be a $100,000 VW.

> The issue is probably volume. I don't have numbers but I would suspect that
> $6000 and up ranges are a fairly small percentage of the total marketplace.
> So, in order to maintain production one must market the products as luxury
> products and get an appropriate price since large scale production isn't an
> option. I think the market for $3000 ranges is probably a pretty small
> percentage of the business as well so cranking up production to address such
> a small market at, say, half the price is probably a money losing
> proposition.

Bingo. Same reason Porche's cost so much. Small market. Basically why
DeLorean failed. There just wasn't a large enough market for cars that
carry two people and a briefcase.

Fresh Monniker > writes:

>Quality and value will sell. As I understand, DCS started because
>they saw that there was money to be made undercutting the old guard.

According to the salesrep for DCS at the HBAL show in Houston in 1996,
when we chose our DCS 48" dual fuel range, DCS used to make some of
the high-end ranges for Thermodor, such as the aforementioned 48" dual
fuel range. There were some disagreements between the two companies as
to how to evolve the product line, so Thermodor decided to make them
themselves (or perhaps contract the manufacturing to someone else) and
DCS went into direct competition against them.

>Bluestar is winning orders even with no advertising and minimal
>distribution.

They may not do much consumer advertising, but they do quite a bit of
'trade' advertising.

>(BTW, KA appliances can be fine. We are specifying two of their
>dishwashers as our cost-no-object choice. A Whirlpool icemaker is
>also as good as the best - same inside.)

If you're talking the clear ice under cabinet icemakers, IMHO Whirlpool
makes very unreliable equipment. We installed two of them, both lasted less
than 5 years before they needed major repairs, and we just replaced one
of them completely because it was $750 to fix it--again--and $1000 to
replace it. (We replaced it with a U-Line because Whirlpool has
discontinued that particular type of undercabinet icemaker, and my
refrigeration repairman thinks U-Line makes much more reliable and
easier to service equipment.)
--
Mike Nolan

"Fresh Monniker" > wrote in message
...
> "Jon Endres, PE" t>
> wrote:
>
> >You aren't missing much, but the step up in features to the
> >"professional-style" range isn't in sync with the price jump.
>
> If this were true, then you or someone would be able to start a very
> profitable company to vastly undercut all those overpriced companies
> out there and dominate the market for nice high quality ranges at a
> reasonable price.

Your business naiveté is rather quaint and charming.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
...
> I just toured the local Homarama. There were about 16 homes ranging from
> $900K to $2 million. I thought the kitchens were unimpressive for homes
of
> that price range. The homes under $1 million had KitchenAid appliances.
> The upper-end homes had Wolfe or Viking. None had more than one
dishwasher.
> I didn't see any compactors. One had a built-in ice maker. A few had
> refrigerator drawer in the wet bar. Far too many had cooktops in islands
> with telescoping downdraft vents. I guess for $2 million dollars I
expected
> something akin a catering kitchen. I got the idea that the kitchens were
> purely for display.

Sounds like it. For a million buck home, I'd expect to put in a 48" or 60"
range, built in fridge, two dishwashers (or maybe a 90-second cycle Hobart),
separate icemaker, commercial 1000 cfm hood, maybe a wok burner, convection
wall oven, lots of granite, stainless, full custom cabinets, a butler's
pantry, etc.

I guess the people that have the money to build that kind of place, don't
have the time to use it. They seem to be built for show.

JE

In article >, Fresh Monniker
> wrote:

> "Fred" > wrote:
>
> >The home models that look like them only have some additional
> >insulation to prevent them from burning up wood cabinets. I doubt
> >insulation could suddenly make these ranges cost 3 times as much.
>
> Don't forget all the lights, polished surfaces (chefs don't complain
> when a new range arrives dented), electronic ignition, certification
> testing, etc.


Having all those features (except mega high power burners), Hotpoint can
sell a range for $500 and was on sale at Best Buy last week for $400. I
suspect the 12,000 BTU burner on the Hotpoint is more efficient than some
of the burners on semi-pro models and thus would be putting more heat into
the pan than the raw number suggests. You can get a range with at least
one16,000 BTU burner for less than $800 at Sears, the latest Kenmore Elite
series ranges have at least one 17,000 BTU burner and in white or black is
probably around $1200. Secondly, true commercial ranges have a lot more
stainless steal, heavy cast iron grates etc. and still can be bought for
low dollars relative to their home version. So the cost of the raw
materials (high BTU burners, oodles of metal) etc. seem to need not much
more $ for the true pro models. Styling, and marketing is obviously the
reason why these ranges command what they do i.e. they do not cost what
they cost because they have "stuff" that is intrinsically expensive.


I do not think that paying for style is bad. I would certainly prefer to
furnish my house with things that look good and function well. I think
the problem is some people pretend they are confined to high end stoves
because of the functionality. For example many people say they want 6
burners at high BTU. I really would like to see a home chef manage six
dishes at high heat.

Ultimately, even expensive home stoves are not that expensive. Assume a
cost of $5000. Many peoples cars probably depreciate by that amount
every year. We all probably own at least 5 cars over our lifetimes at a
likely cost of more than $50,000 -$100,000 and considerably more if you
factor in insurance, gas, maintenance etc. So the cost of owning an
expensive stove is actually, relatively small relative to other expenses
we routinely encur.

Roland

Fresh Monniker > writes:

>Does the U-line make the ice the same way? (With the sheet of ice
>being formed on a chilled plate, then cut by warm wires into square
>cubes?)

No, it makes ice vertically by circulating the water (so the ice is
still clear) through what looks something like an ice cube tray and
dumps the cubes into the hopper. There is a thin bridge between the
cubes, but they break up easily. They're more or less cubical, but they
have a dimple in them. I think that as a result of the dimple the
cubes it produces have a bit more surface area, they seem to melt
faster.

The U-Line also appears to produce about twice as much ice per day
as the Whirlpool unit did. (That may be a plus for some folks.)

In less than 7 years (since February of 1997), we had to replace the
pump in one of the Whirlpool icemakers at least twice and we had to
replace the compressor in the other (fortunately just a few weeks before
the sealed system went out of warranty).

We also had to replace the melting wires in the 2nd unit. Last August,
the sensing bar that is welded on the bottom of the chilling plate broke
off on the 2nd unit, but I was able to wire it back in place so that it
still works, though I had to adjust the cycle rheostats a bit.

A few months ago that same sensing bar broke off on the 1st unit, but
when it did so it also created a coolant leak that would have required
replacing most of the 'guts' to repair. The appliance dealer's service
guy said that nearly every one of the Whirlpool or KA icemakers he's
seen has had that the same problem sooner or later.

I spent HOURS on the phone to Whirlpool, they don't think it's a design
flaw, though they've apparently discontinued making 18" under-cabinet
icemakers in favor of a somewhat differently designed 15" wide unit.

Do I like the new U-Line icemaker (also 15" wide) as much as the Whirlpool
unit it replaced? No, not really. It's a bit noisier some of the time,
produces more heat and the scoop is kind of oddly shaped and way too
small. But I think it'll be a whole lot more reliable. Also, it looks
like it will be a lot less work to clean every six months.
--
Mike Nolan

Fresh Monniker wrote:
> Chris Webster > wrote:
>
>
>>Same reason Porche's cost so much. Small market.
>
>
> Even if they could sell a million, they'd still cost a lot because of
> the actual content.

What does a Porsche have that a Saab doesn't? And HP doesn't count,
cause a chevy truck has lot's of cheap HP.

--Chris

"Cape Cod Bob" > wrote in message
...
> In another post a writer said they were getting a 30' Heartland
> cooktop. It has four burners with a max output of only 15,500 BTU.
> And it looks like real professional model. It costs an amazing $1550.
>
> I fully understand why someone would want a professional range with
> BTU output of 30 - 50,000 BTU. I fact, I am getting a separate wok
> burner with 30,000BTU output for the same price.
>
> But every appliance store I go into has these fake/pseudo professional
> ranges with no more BTU power than "home-looking ranges at 3 to 10
> times the cost of a regular stove range. The highest BTU burner I
> could find on any of these fakes was 17,500. You can get that on
> "regular range" models.

The DCS, Viking and others have much higher BTU outputs than "normal"
ranges. They also have insulation, ignighters, and are not designed to be
turned on at the beginning of the shift and turned off when the store
closes. Many insurance companies would not write a policy for a home that
had a pro stove installed (although I'm told this has changed in some
states). Also almost all "normal" stoves are 30" wide and unless you want
to buy two of them you can't get the number of burners you need or want.

I have a DCS 48" six burner w/ a grill that I enjoy very much (when it is
working which is not very often). I would strongly recommend against a DCS
due to service problems, cost and reliability but will replace it with
another big range when it finally dies. I'm going to push my insurance
company to tell me what changes I have to make to be able to get a real pro
range.

>
> Are these folks just looking for the thrill of adding something "cool"
> (it's sure not "hot") to their McMansions?
>
> What am I missing?
>
>
> _____
> "How I wish that somewhere there existed an island for
> those who are wise and of good will."
> Albert Einstein
> _____
>
> Cape Cod Bob
> Visit my web site at http://home.comcast.net/~bobmethelis
> Delete the two "spam"s for email

"Jon Endres, PE" t> wrote in
message ...
>
>
> I have a fairly standard glass-top GE range at home right now, and it's
sad
> that I can't use a wok or griddle with any degree of success. I'm
springing
> for the commercial style range in my new house (not a McMansion by any
> means) because I want the six burners, the broiler, and the capacity. I'm
> saving by putting a much cheaper (but the largest one they make) Amana
> bottom-freezer unit in the kitchen, and getting a middle-of-the-road
> dishwasher that does one thing well - wash the dishes.
>

Building a new house? Two recommendations that have VERY little cost to
them when building but would break the bank for a retrofit.

1). Pot filler faucet over the range. I do allot of canning and thing is
great for filling large pots.

2). Hot water faucet outside. You'll be surprised how useful it is.

In article >,
Vox Humana > wrote:
>
>I got the idea that the kitchens were
>purely for display.
>

Indeed. Most people do not cook that much. Or care that much about what
they eat.

Back a few years ago, it was "cool" or "chic" to have a real restaurant
range in your kitchen. Browse through several of the older Kitchen design
books.

Once the look caught on, the practicality in installing a real commercial
range daunted folks desiring the "look."

Enter the "professional style range."

Adam
--
Adam Finkelstein
adamfATradixDOTnet

"Fresh Monniker" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Aitken" > wrote:
>
> >> If this were true, then you or someone would be able to start a very
> >> profitable company to vastly undercut all those overpriced companies
> >> out there and dominate the market for nice high quality ranges at a
> >> reasonable price.
> >
> >Your business naiveté is rather quaint and charming.
>
> You need to revisit Econ 101.
>
> Not to mention charm school.

Econ 101! Ha, now THAT is funny. If you think a freshman economy course
teaches anything about how business really works then you are more naive
than I thought. The cemeteries of business failures are littered with
companies that brought out a better product at a lower price. As for charm
school, I was actually quite polite. I could have said "If you believe that
you are an ignorant moron" but I didn't.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Fresh Monniker" > wrote in message
news
> "Vox Humana" > wrote:
>
> >Maybe. However I don't think that the target market for
professional-look
> >residential ranges would buy an inexpensive knock-off, no matter how
good.
> >Just like they wouldn't park a Hyundai in the driveway even it was equal
to
> >a BMW.
>
> Think again. Remember back when they laughed at the notion of a
> $40,000 *Japanese* car? Lexus was a joke until people drove it. Now,
> you can buy a $70,000 VW!
>
> Quality and value will sell. As I understand, DCS started because
> they saw that there was money to be made undercutting the old guard.
> Bluestar is winning orders even with no advertising and minimal
> distribution.
>
> >That name badge glued to the front of the range is at least as
> >important and the quarter ton of stainless and cast iron.
>
> I suspect not, unless you in the La Cornue/AGA realm.
>
> >I just toured the local Homarama. There were about 16 homes ranging from
> >$900K to $2 million. I thought the kitchens were unimpressive for homes
of
> >that price range. The homes under $1 million had KitchenAid appliances.
> >The upper-end homes had Wolfe or Viking. None had more than one
dishwasher.
> >I didn't see any compactors. One had a built-in ice maker. A few had
> >refrigerator drawer in the wet bar. Far too many had cooktops in islands
> >with telescoping downdraft vents. I guess for $2 million dollars I
expected
> >something akin a catering kitchen. I got the idea that the kitchens were
> >purely for display.
>
> I agree about high end houses not having the features an enthusiast
> would expect. Then again, that is why one does a custom build,
> instead of buying a spec home. You want the dough to go where you
> value it most. I am also amazed that a $1.5m home doesn't have
> radiant floor heat, for instance.
>
> But the fact is that most people don't care to cook, and don't care
> about appliances.
>
> Now, let's talk about the poor layout of those homes, the wasted
> space, and... have you looked up at the cheap, inadequate, and poorly
> laid out light fixtures (aside from one or two "art" chandeliers of
> dubious taste)?
>
> (BTW, KA appliances can be fine. We are specifying two of their
> dishwashers as our cost-no-object choice. A Whirlpool icemaker is
> also as good as the best - same inside.)

I guess we can agree on the cheap light fixtures. Most of the homes were
dotted with six inch "builder's best" can lights fitted with cheap bulbs. I
toured at night (to avoid the heat and the crowds) and they were poorly
lighted. I was very surprised to see that non of them had electronic
lighting controls. I have been using X-10 controls for years in my modest
home. I wouldn't want to be without some home automation. Most of the
homes did have decent sound systems.

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:02:49 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Fresh Monniker > wrote:
>
>> >What does a Porsche have that a Saab doesn't?
>>
>> Buyers who appreciate racing performance.
>
>Isn't that like a 75 year old man marrying a 20 year old model?
>
>He can appreciate it all he wants, but everyone knows he's not Paul
>Newman.

Or Peter North.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

"Jon Endres, PE" t> wrote in
message ...
>
> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I just toured the local Homarama. There were about 16 homes ranging
from
> > $900K to $2 million. I thought the kitchens were unimpressive for homes
> of
> > that price range. The homes under $1 million had KitchenAid appliances.
> > The upper-end homes had Wolfe or Viking. None had more than one
> dishwasher.
> > I didn't see any compactors. One had a built-in ice maker. A few had
> > refrigerator drawer in the wet bar. Far too many had cooktops in
islands
> > with telescoping downdraft vents. I guess for $2 million dollars I
> expected
> > something akin a catering kitchen. I got the idea that the kitchens
were
> > purely for display.
>
> Sounds like it. For a million buck home, I'd expect to put in a 48" or
60"
> range, built in fridge, two dishwashers (or maybe a 90-second cycle
Hobart),
> separate icemaker, commercial 1000 cfm hood, maybe a wok burner,
convection
> wall oven, lots of granite, stainless, full custom cabinets, a butler's
> pantry, etc.
>
> I guess the people that have the money to build that kind of place, don't
> have the time to use it. They seem to be built for show.

What makes you think that everybody that cooks wants what you
want? I'm building a new home and have no interest in a 48" range,
two dishwashers, icemaker, wok burner, or butler's pantry. Do
you automatically lump me into the "show no-go" category even
though I cook regularly but am one dishwasher shy of your
preconceived notions?

--Neil

"Neil Williams" > wrote in message
news:Wh9Ac.4882$tC5.2173@fed1read02...
> "Jon Endres, PE" t> wrote
in
> message ...

> > I guess the people that have the money to build that kind of place,
don't
> > have the time to use it. They seem to be built for show.
>
> What makes you think that everybody that cooks wants what you
> want? I'm building a new home and have no interest in a 48" range,
> two dishwashers, icemaker, wok burner, or butler's pantry. Do
> you automatically lump me into the "show no-go" category even
> though I cook regularly but am one dishwasher shy of your
> preconceived notions?

Are you spending upwards of a million bucks on your house? If so, why be
cheap on the kitchen? For me, and for the modern family, it's becoming the
centerpoint and focus of the home.

The preconceived notions are just that - an assumption based on a standard
of living. I would not expect a house in the seven-figure range to have a
$200 Sears range, a 12 cf fridge, low-end formica counters and no
dishwasher. I would similarly not expect a single-wide mobile home, or even
a typical modular tract home, to be filled with slate counters and Viking
appliances. If you're building an expensive home and don't need or want the
big stuff, fine. However, if I was in the market for a house and was
touring homes in a high-end market, I'd expect them to have high-end
appliances and features.

Most of the time, people just don't have the time and energy to spend hours
in the kitchen cooking and baking. That seems to be even more prevalent in
higher income brackets. The end result seems to be that expensive homes
have comparatively less money spent on the kitchen in terms of FUNCTION, and
much more spend in terms of FORM and APPEARANCE, and comfort features of the
other parts of the living space. There are, of course, exceptions, and you
may be one of them.

Jon E

"Jon Endres, PE" t> wrote in
message ...
>
> "Neil Williams" > wrote in message
> news:Wh9Ac.4882$tC5.2173@fed1read02...
> > "Jon Endres, PE" t>
wrote
> in
> > message ...
>
> > > I guess the people that have the money to build that kind of place,
> don't
> > > have the time to use it. They seem to be built for show.
> >
> > What makes you think that everybody that cooks wants what you
> > want? I'm building a new home and have no interest in a 48" range,
> > two dishwashers, icemaker, wok burner, or butler's pantry. Do
> > you automatically lump me into the "show no-go" category even
> > though I cook regularly but am one dishwasher shy of your
> > preconceived notions?
>
> Are you spending upwards of a million bucks on your house? If so, why be
> cheap on the kitchen? For me, and for the modern family, it's becoming
the
> centerpoint and focus of the home.
>
> The preconceived notions are just that - an assumption based on a standard
> of living. I would not expect a house in the seven-figure range to have a
> $200 Sears range, a 12 cf fridge, low-end formica counters and no
> dishwasher. I would similarly not expect a single-wide mobile home, or
even
> a typical modular tract home, to be filled with slate counters and Viking
> appliances. If you're building an expensive home and don't need or want
the
> big stuff, fine. However, if I was in the market for a house and was
> touring homes in a high-end market, I'd expect them to have high-end
> appliances and features.
>
> Most of the time, people just don't have the time and energy to spend
hours
> in the kitchen cooking and baking. That seems to be even more prevalent
in
> higher income brackets. The end result seems to be that expensive homes
> have comparatively less money spent on the kitchen in terms of FUNCTION, a
nd
> much more spend in terms of FORM and APPEARANCE, and comfort features of
the
> other parts of the living space. There are, of course, exceptions, and
you
> may be one of them.

I agree. My point was that the homes STARTED AT $900,000 and went up to
$2,000.000. In this case, they were built as spec homes, only about half of
them were sold at the time I toured them. A lot of money was spent on
cabinets and counters. When you are spending a lot on cabinets, it isn't
much more to fill one of the spaces with a dishwasher rather than a cabinet.
I don't expect that everyone would want the same thing in a kitchen, but
over the last few years I have noticed a trend. The show houses have
smaller kitchens with fewer appliance. Instead of six burner stoves with a
grill and two ovens, they a Kitchen Aid oven and five burner cooktop. Very
few had a second sink or a dedicated all refrigerator/all freezer
combination. In past years, the very upper end houses had extensive
pantries, multiple sinks, refrigerated draws in addition to the main
refrigerator. They had multiple dishwasher, compactors, wine cooler, ice
makers, and often had an auxiliary cooking area that included a wok or
grill. There was very little difference between the $1 mil. homes and the
$2 mil. homes when it came to the kitchens.

"Jon Endres, PE" t> wrote in
message ...
>
> "Neil Williams" > wrote in message
> news:Wh9Ac.4882$tC5.2173@fed1read02...
> > "Jon Endres, PE" t>
wrote
> in
> > message ...
>
> > > I guess the people that have the money to build that kind of place,
> don't
> > > have the time to use it. They seem to be built for show.
> >
> > What makes you think that everybody that cooks wants what you
> > want? I'm building a new home and have no interest in a 48" range,
> > two dishwashers, icemaker, wok burner, or butler's pantry. Do
> > you automatically lump me into the "show no-go" category even
> > though I cook regularly but am one dishwasher shy of your
> > preconceived notions?
>
> Are you spending upwards of a million bucks on your house? If so, why be
> cheap on the kitchen? For me, and for the modern family, it's becoming
the
> centerpoint and focus of the home.
>
> The preconceived notions are just that - an assumption based on a standard
> of living. I would not expect a house in the seven-figure range to have a
> $200 Sears range, a 12 cf fridge, low-end formica counters and no
> dishwasher. I would similarly not expect a single-wide mobile home, or
even
> a typical modular tract home, to be filled with slate counters and Viking
> appliances. If you're building an expensive home and don't need or want
the
> big stuff, fine. However, if I was in the market for a house and was
> touring homes in a high-end market, I'd expect them to have high-end
> appliances and features.
>
> Most of the time, people just don't have the time and energy to spend
hours
> in the kitchen cooking and baking. That seems to be even more prevalent
in
> higher income brackets. The end result seems to be that expensive homes
> have comparatively less money spent on the kitchen in terms of FUNCTION,
and
> much more spend in terms of FORM and APPEARANCE, and comfort features of
the
> other parts of the living space. There are, of course, exceptions, and
you
> may be one of them.

I won't comment on price range except to say that it wasn't an
overriding factor in spec'ing my appliances. I think my kitchen
will be a nice balance of functionality, snob factor, and
practicality. It does everything I need and nothing I don't. I have
a 36" Viking rangetop, asko dishwasher, dual dacor convection
wall ovens, dacor microwave, 600cfm ventahood, and 48"
built-in Kitchenaid fridge. I do cook a couple times a week -
usually on the weekend.

I think I have a fine cook's kitchen for a small family, whereas your
dream list sounds more like an entertainer's kitchen or someone with
a very large family. I can't image what I would do with a warming
drawer, dual dishwashers, ice machine, 48" range, or butler's pantry...
I just don't need 'em. Actually I once floated the dual-dishwasher
idea to my wife but got a tongue-lashing for just trying to
delay unloading the dishwasher, LOL!

But don't forget that even people that buy million dollar homes
still have budgets. The 10k for the other items on your wish list
is easily swallowed up elsewhere - extra bay for the garage,
marble mosaic in the foyer, backyard gazebo, negative-edge
pool, structured wiring, extra/upgraded granite, etc.

Check out the gardenweb forum in the Spring; I should have
some pics up by then and you can tell me if my kitchen looks
like a poseur :-)

--Neil

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:41:39 -0400, Cape Cod Bob
> wrote:

>In another post a writer said they were getting a 30' Heartland
>cooktop. It has four burners with a max output of only 15,500 BTU.
>And it looks like real professional model. It costs an amazing $1550.
>
[...]
>But every appliance store I go into has these fake/pseudo professional
>ranges with no more BTU power than "home-looking ranges at 3 to 10
>times the cost of a regular stove range. The highest BTU burner I
>could find on any of these fakes was 17,500. You can get that on
>"regular range" models.
>
>Are these folks just looking for the thrill of adding something "cool"
>(it's sure not "hot") to their McMansions?
>
>What am I missing?
_____

It is the kitchen equivalent of the bulging fender, crash-bar
bedecked, Tonka-toy look so popular with SUVs driven by housewives
with 5 inch heels. That is, the appearance of function and capability
is used to extract a much higher markup. In most cases there is no
harm in extracting disposable income from fools. Neither is likely to
actually try to use the purchace in the way the manufacturer implies
that they could.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Cape Cod Bob > wrote:
>
> > Are these folks just looking for the thrill of adding something "cool"
> > (it's sure not "hot") to their McMansions?
>
> Bingo.
>
> "Oh, look, honey! It's JUST like the one Emeril uses!"
>
>
> > What am I missing?
>
> Nothing.
>
> A real professional range actually looks like shit after awhile. And
> nobody wants to put a real professional hood in his house, so......these
> things.
>

LOL.. Yes, that about sums it up

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
. com...
> "Cape Cod Bob" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In another post a writer said they were getting a 30' Heartland
> > cooktop. It has four burners with a max output of only 15,500 BTU.
> > And it looks like real professional model. It costs an amazing $1550.
> >
> > I fully understand why someone would want a professional range with
> > BTU output of 30 - 50,000 BTU. I fact, I am getting a separate wok
> > burner with 30,000BTU output for the same price.
> >
> > But every appliance store I go into has these fake/pseudo professional
> > ranges with no more BTU power than "home-looking ranges at 3 to 10
> > times the cost of a regular stove range. The highest BTU burner I
> > could find on any of these fakes was 17,500. You can get that on
> > "regular range" models.
> >
> > Are these folks just looking for the thrill of adding something "cool"
> > (it's sure not "hot") to their McMansions?
> >
> > What am I missing?
> >
>
> Some of those "pseudo-professional" ranges are in fact excellent ranges
but
> as you note they are nothing like a real professional range that you'd
find
> is a restaurant kitchen. Of course the look is the main selling point.
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

COMMERCIAL equipment usually assumes volume and reliable, CONTINUOUS USE.
Professionals are familiar with commercial units. You get what you pay for.
One thing I always assess now when I buy equipment is whether one is loading
for bear but more likely tracking rabbits. Commercial units are, in many
cases, over-kill. Enter "prosumer" marketing. If I could afford it, I
would bring commercial units into my home kitchen. Whether I would ever use
them to any demand justifying commercial equipment is certain... no LOL
though I would know what to do with each of them. Sears and other home
appliance producers usually have decent top of the line models but there are
those features which can make a huge difference---like the capacity of an
oven for a standard bakeshop sheetpan, for cryin out loud. ":^)