On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:35:20 -0500, "Dee Randall"
<deedoveyatshenteldotnet> wrote:
>Thanks.
>I'm speaking here below only of pans that are NOT non-stick:
>Is there any reason one would purchase a hard-anodized pot; i.e. 4 qt.
>pot/pan , vs. a heavy stainless steel 4 qt. pot/pan like the Cuisinart or
>Kirkland heavy-duty pans/pots.
>I use mostly non-stick now, so I'm interested in the virtues of
>hard-anodized vs. the heavy-duty stainless.
>Thanks so much.
>Dee
>
They have somewhat different cooking characteristics. Aluminum is a
much better conductor of heat than stainless steel. That is why
premium stainless cookware uses a layered construction. I must admit
that I use my Calphalon mostly for stuff like boiling water for pasta.
A bare aluminum pot would work just as well, and it is much less
expensive.

No cookware is "best" for everything. A good compromise for most
purposes is aluminum cookware with a thin stainless lining like All
Clad Master Chef. The All Clad Limited line has a hard anodized
coating on the outside. It cost a lot more than Master Chef. The
anodized coating on the outside is strictly for appearance. All Clad
Stainless is a sandwich constuction with stainless on the outside and
inside. The stainless on the outside is for appearance and actually
reduces cooking performance a bit.

There are many good brands other than All Clad, of course, but the
construction tends to follow the same patterns.

I do prefer stainless cookware (again, like All Clad) that has a layer
of aluminum around the entire vessel. Cuisinart, for example is
stainless with a copper sandwich on the bottom only. These pots tend
to have a thicker layer of stainless (hence generally poorer
conductivity), and I have observed more of a tendency for things to
burn near the edges of the conductive sandwich underneath.

I have accumulate a lot of cookware over the years of almost every
type you can imagine. I haven't found anything that is ideal for
everything.

Cheers,

Leonard