Sky wrote:
>
> Nancy2 wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 5, 9:56 am, "Pete C." > wrote:
> > > Becca wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here is a message from one of my friends. Any advice?
> > >
> > > > **"I purchased a new stainless pan, made by calphalon, - the fish
> > > > and eggs stuck to it - what a mess, what did I do wrong? Do I have
> > > > to season a new stainless pan??"**
> > >
> > > > Becca
> > >
> > > Yes, got get a good pan instead. Stainless steel is good for counters
> > > and mixing bowls, but lousy for a cooking surface. If they're expecting
> > > a non-stick surface they need to get a non-stick pan and stainless in
> > > not non-stick. If they want a low stick pan get a hard anodized aluminum
> > > pan. If they're afraid of non-stick or aluminum pans due to discredited
> > > rumors, they need to get a clue and a life.
> >
> > You couldn't be more wrong. Good stainless is just as good if not
> > better than non-stick. My Emerilware (made by All-Clad) stainless
> > never suffers from stuck food. One just has to know how to cook. My
> > pans always just swish clean.
> >
> > N.
>
> I agree, Nancy - I was thinking phooey, too <G>! SS works very well,
> and frankly, I try to get away from the non-stick stuff, although it
> (the non-stick stuff) does have its uses. And SS, when soaked with a
> bit of water for a short bit after cooking cleans up wonderfully!

You can think phooey all you want, but the fact remains that SS is a
lousy cooking surface. It's not just a function of non-stick qualities,
it's also a function of poor thermal qualities. There is a reason you
see little SS cookware in a professional kitchen.