Jessica V. wrote:
> JimLane wrote:
>

snip


>> I could care less about the Griswold. If they are lighter, then they
>> are thinner, are they not? And one of the very best things about cast
>> iron is that it is a great heat sink, especially if you are frying.
>> Your Griswold would be inferior in that capacity to the old Lodge
>> stuff I have.
>>
>>
>> jim
>
>
>
> Try a Griswold before you make anymore statements like this Jim. They
> realy are good pans. Better than Wagner and exponentially better than
> Lodge. A good old Griswold pan is not thin but it is lighter in weight
> than the mammoth has to be huge, heavy and cheap pans that Lodge sells.
>
> Cooks don't spent the upwards of $1000 for certain Griswold pans because
> they are inferior to Lodge.
>
> Jessica

It is inferior in this capacity. That is a f ct. It is a function of
mass and weight. Have a physicist explain it to you.

Why did you mention price?

Are you trying to say that money ALWAYS indicates better quality? Well,
if that is the case, you are wrong (maybe not about the pans, but as a
generality).

Why did you mention price?

Are you trying to impress me with price? Whatta joke. Using price in
this fashion reminds me of the very many people I know who have more
money than brains and buy the expensive stuff so they can have bragging
rights.

Sorta like that fella I knew who had a china cabinet filled with all the
latest Nikon camera gear, did not know how to use them, let alone take a
picture with one, and kept a cheap point and shoot for the pics he
actually did take.

Asked him why the display.

"Chick magnet," was the reply. Probably worked with the same bimbos who
would be impressed by Griswold and who had never used one.


jim