In today's NY Times, Ms. Burros throws out her Teflon and looks for a
good substitute:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/di...gewanted=print

She tested All-Clad, some brands I don't know, Le Creuset and plain
old-fashioned cast-iron.

"The Le Creuset pan and the two cast-iron pans produced amazing
results. Nothing stuck, including the eggs, and it was quite easy to
roll up omelets. There were almost no eggs to scrape up. I don't
recommend browning potatoes or onions with a film of oil because they
won't have much flavor, but these pans could do it."
....
"The only other difference was that the cast-iron pans, with or without
enamel, took longer to heat up and cool down.

"But bigger differences became clear when it was time for cleaning, the
kitchen job I like least. The All-Clad, even more so than Bourgeat,
required serious scrubbing to remove those pesky little brown spots
that form when oil leaps up the sides of the pan and sticks. And food
does stick to All-Clad sometimes, requiring removal by cleanser and
elbow grease.

"Cleaning the cast iron, Le Creuset and carbon steel was very easy.
Food that clings to them can be easily scrubbed away with a stiff brush
or, in the case of Le Creuset, soaked off. (Soap is not recommended for
cast iron and carbon steel, but it can be used on the Le Creuset and
the Calphalon.)

"Unlike the Calphalon and carbon steel, the cast-iron and enameled pans
are heavy. The handles get hot, so pot holders must be used.

"The carbon steel and the untreated cast iron must be seasoned, though
the process is simple. They must be dried thoroughly and lightly oiled
or they will rust.

"Cooking certain acidic foods like tomatoes in cast iron changes the
taste and color, but it does add iron to the diet.

"After all the tests, there was one pan I fell for: Le Creuset. It is
easy to clean, and because of its enamel finish, acidic foods can be
cooked without changes to color or taste. The cast iron pans were a
very close second."

(End quote)

Note on cast-iron - you can now buy pre-seasoned cast-iron skillets for
not much more money than unseasoned. Still a great deal.

I own a large Le Creuset skillet, the deep one with two handles, and 2
cast-iron skillets, one mid-sized and one small. Love 'em. I might one
day buy a bigger cast-iron for bigger jobs - but until then my
frying/sauteeing needs are met. Stir fry on a regular stovetop goes
better in a cast iron flat-bottom skillet, because the burners aren't
hot enough to get a wok really sizzling. (So says Pam Anderson) - we do
terrific stir-fry in my cast-iron skillet adn that's the big incentive
to buy a larger one.

Leila

Leila wrote:
> In today's NY Times, Ms. Burros throws out her Teflon and looks for a
> good substitute:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/di...gewanted=print
>
>
> (End quote)
>
> Note on cast-iron - you can now buy pre-seasoned cast-iron skillets for
> not much more money than unseasoned. Still a great deal.
>
> I own a large Le Creuset skillet, the deep one with two handles, and 2
> cast-iron skillets, one mid-sized and one small. Love 'em. I might one
> day buy a bigger cast-iron for bigger jobs - but until then my
> frying/sauteeing needs are met. Stir fry on a regular stovetop goes
> better in a cast iron flat-bottom skillet, because the burners aren't
> hot enough to get a wok really sizzling. (So says Pam Anderson) - we do
> terrific stir-fry in my cast-iron skillet adn that's the big incentive
> to buy a larger one.
>
> Leila
>
>
I don't have any cast iron, even the small pans are just too heavy for me.

However, I have a Scanpan non-stick skillet, and I can tell you that it
is absolutely *non-stick*.

Christine

In rec.food.cooking, Lenny Abbey > wrote:

> Stainless steel is honest. I know what to expect,

But it neither holds nor conducts heat particularly well. Additionally,
it discolors at high heat levels.

Another honest material is anodized aluminum, which conducts well, but
does not hold heat as well as cast iron.

I use my stainless for tasks which do not require high performance, like
heating up soup or making rice, because it can be put through the
dishwasher. But for anything that requires good cooking abilities, I
choose between my aluminum and my cast iron.

--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

>
> "The carbon steel and the untreated cast iron must be seasoned, though
> the process is simple. They must be dried thoroughly and lightly oiled
> or they will rust.
>
> "Cooking certain acidic foods like tomatoes in cast iron changes the
> taste and color, but it does add iron to the diet.
>
> "After all the tests, there was one pan I fell for: Le Creuset. It is
> easy to clean, and because of its enamel finish, acidic foods can be
> cooked without changes to color or taste. The cast iron pans were a
> very close second."
>
> (End quote)
>
> Note on cast-iron - you can now buy pre-seasoned cast-iron skillets for
> not much more money than unseasoned. Still a great deal.
>
> I own a large Le Creuset skillet, the deep one with two handles, and 2
> cast-iron skillets, one mid-sized and one small. Love 'em. I might one
> day buy a bigger cast-iron for bigger jobs - but until then my
> frying/sauteeing needs are met. Stir fry on a regular stovetop goes
> better in a cast iron flat-bottom skillet, because the burners aren't
> hot enough to get a wok really sizzling. (So says Pam Anderson) - we do
> terrific stir-fry in my cast-iron skillet adn that's the big incentive
> to buy a larger one.
>
> Leila

I have three cast iron skillets, about 35 years old. I've seen skillets at
Smart & Final (sort of wholesale/small business/public restaurant supply
store) that are for commercial cooking. The prices are right, the skillets
are made of stainless steel. I'm gonna get one soon.
I've also done stirfry in the big castiron skillet, turns out pretty good
also.
>

In article et>,
says...
> After 40+ years of gourmet cooking I made the surprisingly un-difficult
> decision to throw out all of my various "non-stick" skillets. They all fail
> sooner or later.
>
> I replaced them with Cuisinart stainless steel, with aluminum "implants" in
> the bottom. Stainless steel may not have the non-stick qualities that a
> brand new teflon pan does. But the teflon, or other non-stick coated pan
> will sooner or later lose its magic quality. And it will be ugly too.
>
> Stainless steel is honest. I know what to expect, and it should last as long
> as I will. After each use I fill it with water and a generous squirt of
> Dawn. It is easy to get any stuck matter off with a tuffy after a few hours.
>
> I bought the Cuisinarts from Amazon. They sell them at a steep discount. A
> 12", 10" and 8" all for under $100.

Part of the problem with non-stick coatings is that the minute they're
touched by metal, they start to disintegrate. The SO has destroyed a
number of my non-stick pans over the years by doing just that. As soon
as I see them scratched up, in the trash they go otherwise you're eating
the coating.

I have one 12" non-stick skillet that he is absolutely forbidden to use
under penalty of death. I've even gone so far as to make sure all our
tools are plastic or silicone, that way even if he does use it he can't
necessarily damage it.

In article
>,
Old Mother Ashby > wrote:

> However, I have a Scanpan non-stick skillet, and I can tell you that it
> is absolutely *non-stick*.

Perhaps they changed their composition, and they are now applying a
polymer coating. CJ and I have some Scanpans that are several years
old. At that time their stuff was made of coated aluminum, fairly heavy
grade. The coating is not anodized (like Calphalon) - it's some sort of
ceramic that is applied by sputtering or very high temp baking.

The ones that we have are not as slick as the stuff that is usually sold
as "nonstick". But I like them better. We can run them hot enough to
brown things. Food does stick to the pan a bit, and that's often
desirable. We get a nice fond, so we can deglaze and make sauces. But,
unlike our All-Clad stainless stuff, the Scanpans clean up quite easily,

My only gripe is that the ceramic coating sometimes chips off, or pits.
This might be because we are not too careful about storing the pans.
They get tossed into a cabinet, knocked around with other things. But
they came with a lifetime guarantee on the coating. We sent a couple of
them back to Scanpan, and they were replaced, no questions asked.

We've never owned any Calphalon pans. But everyone I know who has them
has reported that eventually the coating does wear off on those, too. I
don't know if they are guaranteed.

By the way, for those who prefer pans with a stainless cooking surface -
try Bar Keeper's Friend for cleanup of crusty messes and stains. It
comes in a can similar to Comet cleanser. Very mild abrasive, with
oxalic acid.

--
Julian Vrieslander

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.food.cooking, Lenny Abbey > wrote:
>
> > Stainless steel is honest. I know what to expect,
>
> But it neither holds nor conducts heat particularly well. Additionally,
> it discolors at high heat levels.

I have never experienced the discolorization. So I can't comment!

> Another honest material is anodized aluminum, which conducts well, but
> does not hold heat as well as cast iron.

I think that poor conductivity is desirable. This is the only way to evenly
distribute the heat. I think that is what the aluminum does...and these
skillets have aluminum implants on the bottom.

Try filling your favorite pot with water and heating it on the stove. If you
can see the pattern of the heating elements, your pot is not ideal. Cast
iron will diffuse the heat because it is a relatively poor conductor...for a
cooking vessel. Ditto for aluminum. But try this with a copper bottom pot.
You can actually see the pattern of the heating elements in the tiny bubbles
forming on the bottom as it heats up. No way to warm egg yolks!

Lenny

In rec.food.cooking, Lenny Abbey > wrote:

> I think that poor conductivity is desirable. This is the only way to evenly
> distribute the heat. I think that is what the aluminum does...and these
> skillets have aluminum implants on the bottom.

I think you may have that backwards - if a material does not conduct heat
well, then the heat will stay in one place, causing uneven distribution.
As an example, the handles on my Calphalon aluminum skillets are made of
stainless steel, because stainless is a poor conductor of heat. Where the
handle is riveted onto the body of the pan, the handle is appoximately the
same temp as the pan. But given the poor conductivity, the part of the
handle that you grasp stays relatively cool. If the handle were made of
aluminum or iron (or copper or silver) then the heat would be conducted
from the pan all the way to the end of the handle, evenly distributed.


> Try filling your favorite pot with water and heating it on the stove. If you
> can see the pattern of the heating elements, your pot is not ideal. Cast
> iron will diffuse the heat because it is a relatively poor conductor...

A poor conductor compared to what? Certainly not stainless. Maybe
compared to copper?


for a
> cooking vessel. Ditto for aluminum.

Aluminum is also a relatively good conductor of heat.


But try this with a copper bottom pot.
> You can actually see the pattern of the heating elements in the tiny bubbles
> forming on the bottom as it heats up. No way to warm egg yolks!

Copper is a better conductor than either aluminum or iron.



--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

Try the water experiment that I described. See if the heat doesn't come
right through the bottom of a copper pan.

Lenny


> wrote in message
...
> In rec.food.cooking, Lenny Abbey > wrote:
>
> > I think that poor conductivity is desirable. This is the only way to
evenly
> > distribute the heat. I think that is what the aluminum does...and these
> > skillets have aluminum implants on the bottom.
>
> I think you may have that backwards - if a material does not conduct heat
> well, then the heat will stay in one place, causing uneven distribution.
> As an example, the handles on my Calphalon aluminum skillets are made of
> stainless steel, because stainless is a poor conductor of heat. Where the
> handle is riveted onto the body of the pan, the handle is appoximately the
> same temp as the pan. But given the poor conductivity, the part of the
> handle that you grasp stays relatively cool. If the handle were made of
> aluminum or iron (or copper or silver) then the heat would be conducted
> from the pan all the way to the end of the handle, evenly distributed.
>
>
> > Try filling your favorite pot with water and heating it on the stove. If
you
> > can see the pattern of the heating elements, your pot is not ideal. Cast
> > iron will diffuse the heat because it is a relatively poor conductor...
>
> A poor conductor compared to what? Certainly not stainless. Maybe
> compared to copper?
>
>
> for a
> > cooking vessel. Ditto for aluminum.
>
> Aluminum is also a relatively good conductor of heat.
>
>
> But try this with a copper bottom pot.
> > You can actually see the pattern of the heating elements in the tiny
bubbles
> > forming on the bottom as it heats up. No way to warm egg yolks!
>
> Copper is a better conductor than either aluminum or iron.
>
>
>
> --
> A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
> --Edward R. Murrow

In rec.food.cooking, Lenny Abbey > wrote:
> Try the water experiment that I described. See if the heat doesn't come
> right through the bottom of a copper pan.

It depends largely on how thick the copper is. Think of a piece of copper
foil - your effect is quite visible. But now think about a 1 inch thick
copper plate. Things would be very different.

I can't vouch for the copper pans you've tried.



> Lenny


> > wrote in message
> ...
> > In rec.food.cooking, Lenny Abbey > wrote:
> >
> > > I think that poor conductivity is desirable. This is the only way to
> evenly
> > > distribute the heat. I think that is what the aluminum does...and these
> > > skillets have aluminum implants on the bottom.
> >
> > I think you may have that backwards - if a material does not conduct heat
> > well, then the heat will stay in one place, causing uneven distribution.
> > As an example, the handles on my Calphalon aluminum skillets are made of
> > stainless steel, because stainless is a poor conductor of heat. Where the
> > handle is riveted onto the body of the pan, the handle is appoximately the
> > same temp as the pan. But given the poor conductivity, the part of the
> > handle that you grasp stays relatively cool. If the handle were made of
> > aluminum or iron (or copper or silver) then the heat would be conducted
> > from the pan all the way to the end of the handle, evenly distributed.
> >
> >
> > > Try filling your favorite pot with water and heating it on the stove. If
> you
> > > can see the pattern of the heating elements, your pot is not ideal. Cast
> > > iron will diffuse the heat because it is a relatively poor conductor...
> >
> > A poor conductor compared to what? Certainly not stainless. Maybe
> > compared to copper?
> >
> >
> > for a
> > > cooking vessel. Ditto for aluminum.
> >
> > Aluminum is also a relatively good conductor of heat.
> >
> >
> > But try this with a copper bottom pot.
> > > You can actually see the pattern of the heating elements in the tiny
> bubbles
> > > forming on the bottom as it heats up. No way to warm egg yolks!
> >
> > Copper is a better conductor than either aluminum or iron.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
> > --Edward R. Murrow



--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

On 2006-06-07, Leila > wrote:
> In today's NY Times, Ms. Burros throws out her Teflon and looks for a
> good substitute:

Ms Burros must have some cheap-ass teflon pans. Mine is over 10 yrs
old and works as good as the day I bought it. Quality lasts, crap is
crap.

http://www.whitfordww.com/excalibur.html

nb