On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:48:50 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"Rodney Myrvaagnes" > wrote in message
>>
>> I weighed the two. The Wagner's weighs 3 lb 2 1/2 oz. It would
>> probably lose half an ounce if the bottom had been ground.
>>
>> The Griswold weighs 2 lb 4 oz., considerably lighter than the Wagners.
>>
>> To me heavier is better for heat distribution, but the smooth bottom
>> is much better for deglazing. If I find an old 8-inch Wagners it will
>> likely replace the Griswold.
>>
>> Our 11 3/4 in Wagners has a smooth bottom. It bottoms the kitchen
>> scale which ends at 5 lb. Its heat distribution is noticeably not as
>> good as a Calphalon aluminum saute pan, and I expect a lighter
>> Griswold would be worse in that respect, although undoubtedly easier
>> to pick up.
>
>
>Interesting conclusion. OK, the Claphalon and CI pans are different
>materials, but . . . . .
>You say the lighter aluminum pan gives better heat distribution than the CI,
>but they you suspect the heavier CI is better than the lighter Griswold CI.
>
>Griswold has a reputation for being the best CI cookware. Why is that?
>IMO, your conclusions are based on fuzzy logic and has nothing to do with
>real cooking. Please report back when you actually cook something.
>
All my conclusions are based on use over years. Calphalon saute pans
are actually quite heavy and are much thicker than any of the CI pans.
Heat conductivity is different for each metal.

A thick copper pan would no doubt have better distribution properties
than any of these. It still would not be a substitute for the CI for
some things. It would replace the Calphalon if it had a lid that
sealed well.

I did not mean that I don't like the CI pans. I actually use them for
more things than the aluminum. None of these is perfect for
everything.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC

Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas