On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 09:14:04 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> 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.

....which is why they typically have copper-clad bottoms or an aluminum
core. i don't see 'thermal qualities' as an argument for non-stick,
either. what is the non-stick coating stuck to?

your pal,
blake