"Rodney Myrvaagnes" > wrote in message
> 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.

OK, we agree so far.

>
> 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.

But you did surmise that the Griswold would not perform as well. They have
such a reputation of quality, I'd be reluctant to make a conclusion based on
the weight of the pan. Casting alloys, porosity, wall thickness all come
into play. Maybe the Griswold thing is a myth, but until you try it, I'm
not accepting your conclusions.