My wife needs a new multi-purpose frying pan for bacon, hamburgers, etc.
She doesn't want stainless steel (too sticky for her?) and she doesn't
want the non-stick pans either (cause the non-stick isn't durable when
used for a lot of things). We'd be using some metal utensils with it.
And it needs to be able to go in the dishwasher.

She likes an old pan I have called "Regal Ware" which isn't stainless
steel, isn't non-stick. I can only describe it as a "stone" material
that I believe has been relatively durable, pretty good at cleaning, and
can handle real frying. Its a discontinued material I believe, and I
don't know what on the market now is analogous to it.

She'd like it to be 10+ inches, a plastic handle, round, somewhat deep,
and no metal "mini-handle" (or whatever those are) opposite the handle.

I'd like to get her something between $40 and $100.

I have heard of the ScanPan 10" frying pan, but one review on epinions
claims its pretty "non" durable if used around metal utensils, etc.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

-- Norm

In article >, opt_net_
says...
> My wife needs a new multi-purpose frying pan for bacon, hamburgers, etc.
> She doesn't want stainless steel (too sticky for her?) and she doesn't
> want the non-stick pans either (cause the non-stick isn't durable when
> used for a lot of things). We'd be using some metal utensils with it.
> And it needs to be able to go in the dishwasher.
>
> She likes an old pan I have called "Regal Ware" which isn't stainless
> steel, isn't non-stick. I can only describe it as a "stone" material
> that I believe has been relatively durable, pretty good at cleaning, and
> can handle real frying. Its a discontinued material I believe, and I
> don't know what on the market now is analogous to it.
>
> She'd like it to be 10+ inches, a plastic handle, round, somewhat deep,
> and no metal "mini-handle" (or whatever those are) opposite the handle.
>
> I'd like to get her something between $40 and $100.
>
> I have heard of the ScanPan 10" frying pan, but one review on epinions
> claims its pretty "non" durable if used around metal utensils, etc.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks!
>

The Excalibur nonstick finish is pretty durable. It's on Cuisinart
frying pans, and probably some others.

I also have a Cybernox frying pan, which is an alloy instead of a
coating. The pan becomes nonstick after you've heated it past 350
degrees. This is important, because it sticks like a son of a gun if
the pan isn't hot enough when you put the food in.

I mostly use the Cuisinart pan.

> Norm Mclean > wrote:

> My wife needs a new multi-purpose frying pan for bacon, hamburgers, etc.
> She doesn't want stainless steel (too sticky for her?) and she doesn't
> want the non-stick pans either (cause the non-stick isn't durable when
> used for a lot of things). We'd be using some metal utensils with it.
> And it needs to be able to go in the dishwasher.
>
> She likes an old pan I have called "Regal Ware" which isn't stainless
> steel, isn't non-stick. I can only describe it as a "stone" material
> that I believe has been relatively durable, pretty good at cleaning, and
> can handle real frying. Its a discontinued material I believe, and I
> don't know what on the market now is analogous to it.
>
> She'd like it to be 10+ inches, a plastic handle, round, somewhat deep,
> and no metal "mini-handle" (or whatever those are) opposite the handle.
>
> I'd like to get her something between $40 and $100.
>
> I have heard of the ScanPan 10" frying pan, but one review on epinions
> claims its pretty "non" durable if used around metal utensils, etc.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- Norm



If you want the best for the cooking purpose you describe
then there is nothing better than
old fashioned milled cast iron pans. Will last several
lifetimes. Once well seasoned is non-stick and easy wipe out
to clean. Log onto ebay.com and search for Griswold and/or Wagner
cast iron (do not even bother with newer milled cast iron
from Lodge, etc.. they do not mill their bottoms smooth
anymore... and don't bother with newer "famous chef" named cast
iron pans.. they are even worse.)
They do not make Griswold cast ironware anymore - but there is
nothing better. Grab a few skillets while you can before
the prices go into the exclusive realm of collectors rather
than people that want to cook with the pans.
Look for skillets that still have the cartwheel mill marks
on the cooking surface (a 'glass smooth' metal cooking surface
will not be able to hold a good seasoning.. you want the
milling to act as 'tread' to hold the seasoning layers which
will build up as you cook and create non-stick surface).

I would suggest getting Griswold No.8 and No.10 skillets.
perfect sizes for anything you might want to do.

"Norm Mclean" > wrote in message
8.85...
> My wife needs a new multi-purpose frying pan for bacon, hamburgers, etc.
> She doesn't want stainless steel (too sticky for her?) and she doesn't
> want the non-stick pans either (cause the non-stick isn't durable when
> used for a lot of things). We'd be using some metal utensils with it.
> And it needs to be able to go in the dishwasher.
>
> She likes an old pan I have called "Regal Ware" which isn't stainless
> steel, isn't non-stick. I can only describe it as a "stone" material
> that I believe has been relatively durable, pretty good at cleaning, and
> can handle real frying. Its a discontinued material I believe, and I
> don't know what on the market now is analogous to it.
>
> She'd like it to be 10+ inches, a plastic handle, round, somewhat deep,
> and no metal "mini-handle" (or whatever those are) opposite the handle.
>
> I'd like to get her something between $40 and $100.
>
> I have heard of the ScanPan 10" frying pan, but one review on epinions
> claims its pretty "non" durable if used around metal utensils, etc.
>

You have ruled out stainless, nonstick, aluminum (not dishwaher-safe), and
cast iron (no plastic handles) so there's not much left. Maybe enameled cast
iron?


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Norm Mclean" > wrote in message
> 8.85...
>
>>My wife needs a new multi-purpose frying pan for bacon, hamburgers, etc.
>>She doesn't want stainless steel (too sticky for her?) and she doesn't
>>want the non-stick pans either (cause the non-stick isn't durable when
>>used for a lot of things). We'd be using some metal utensils with it.
>>And it needs to be able to go in the dishwasher.
>>
>>She likes an old pan I have called "Regal Ware" which isn't stainless
>>steel, isn't non-stick. I can only describe it as a "stone" material
>>that I believe has been relatively durable, pretty good at cleaning, and
>>can handle real frying. Its a discontinued material I believe, and I
>>don't know what on the market now is analogous to it.
>>
>>She'd like it to be 10+ inches, a plastic handle, round, somewhat deep,
>>and no metal "mini-handle" (or whatever those are) opposite the handle.
>>
>>I'd like to get her something between $40 and $100.
>>
>>I have heard of the ScanPan 10" frying pan, but one review on epinions
>>claims its pretty "non" durable if used around metal utensils, etc.
>>
>
>
> You have ruled out stainless, nonstick, aluminum (not dishwaher-safe), and
> cast iron (no plastic handles) so there's not much left. Maybe enameled cast
> iron?
>
>
There are microwave bacon cookers, and the burgers are better in the
broiler or on the grill anyway.

--

================================================== =============
Regards

Louis Cohen

"Yes, yes, I will desalinate you, you grande morue!"

Émile Zola, Assommoir 1877

>> "Norm Mclean" > wrote in message
>> 8.85...
>>
>>>My wife needs a new multi-purpose frying pan for bacon, hamburgers, etc.
>>>She doesn't want stainless steel (too sticky for her?) and she doesn't
>>>want the non-stick pans either (cause the non-stick isn't durable when
>>>used for a lot of things). We'd be using some metal utensils with it.
>>>And it needs to be able to go in the dishwasher.
>>>
>>>She likes an old pan I have called "Regal Ware" which isn't stainless
>>>steel, isn't non-stick. I can only describe it as a "stone" material

Considering you've eliminated just about every material, a stone is about
the only thing left. You can find some flat ones that should work.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:35:48 -0700, Louis Cohen
> wrote:

>There are microwave bacon cookers, and the burgers are better in the
>broiler or on the grill anyway.

I am always amazed that so many people think cooking on a charcoal or
gas outdoor grille adds flavor. It doesn't. What adds the "flavor"
is the fact that these are hot heat sources, which brown the meat -=
the Maillard reaction. Charcoal or lava rocks add NO flavor - NONE.

I achieve a better product by cooking on my stove top in a very, very
hot fry pan (often cast iron) than any broiler or grill. I can more
closely control the meat's degree of doneness and amount of char since
I can see the meat cook.

------------
There are no atheists in foxholes
or in Fenway Park in an extra inning
game.
____

Cape Cod Bob
Visit my web site at http://home.comcast.net/~bobmethelis
Delete the two "spam"s for email

"Cape Cod Bob" > wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:35:48 -0700, Louis Cohen
> > wrote:
>
>>There are microwave bacon cookers, and the burgers are better in the
>>broiler or on the grill anyway.
>
> I am always amazed that so many people think cooking on a charcoal or
> gas outdoor grille adds flavor. It doesn't. What adds the "flavor"
> is the fact that these are hot heat sources, which brown the meat -=
> the Maillard reaction. Charcoal or lava rocks add NO flavor - NONE.
>

You are mistaken. Flavor is added by drippings that fall onto the charcoal
or lava rocks and sizzle. The resulting smoke is what adds the flavor.


--
Peter Aitken

What I really like are cast iron pans with ridges. The fat drains off,
and the meat is elevated. When they finally achieve seasoning nirvana
they're as effective as coated pans.

These are cheap new knockoffs. They weren't preseasoned. I don't know
what kind of stress it would take to ruin one. The smoothness of the
bottom isn't an issue for me as I use a gas stove. I tried one
figuring for 8 bucks I could afford to experiment.

Joan

writes:

> Charcoal briquettes sure do have a flavor, the flavor of the coal that
> is used to make them.

Charcoal is not made from coal.

--
Alan Shutko > - I am the rocks.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:50:42 -0700, wrote:


>
>Charcoal briquettes sure do have a flavor, the flavor of the coal that
>is used to make them. So if you like your meat to taste like a coal
>mine go right ahead and use them.

Andrew..you ned to buy a better grade of charcoal, since all the
reputable brands are NOT made from coal.

And has been since the 1920s, when Henry Ford learned of a process for
turning wood scraps from the production of Model T's into charcoal
briquets. He built a charcoal plant, and the rest is history.

The Kingsford Company was formed when E.G. Kingsford, a relative of
Ford's, brokered the site selection for Ford's new charcoal
manufacturing plant. The company, originally called Ford Charcoal, was
renamed Kingsford® Charcoal in his honor.

"Ida Slapter" > wrote in message
>
> Andrew..you ned to buy a better grade of charcoal, since all the
> reputable brands are NOT made from coal.
>
> And has been since the 1920s, when Henry Ford learned of a process for
> turning wood scraps from the production of Model T's into charcoal
> briquets. He built a charcoal plant, and the rest is history.


Kingsford uses coal in their recipes. Aside form lump (natural) charcoal,
who does not? .

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 00:57:16 -0400, Cape Cod Bob
> > wrote:
>
>> Charcoal or lava rocks add NO flavor - NONE.
>
> Charcoal briquettes sure do have a flavor, the flavor of the coal that
> is used to make them. So if you like your meat to taste like a coal
> mine go right ahead and use them.
>
> Andrew

Except that charcoal is not made from coal - it's made from wood.


--
Peter Aitken

"Alan Shutko" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Charcoal briquettes sure do have a flavor, the flavor of the coal that
>> is used to make them.
>
> Charcoal is not made from coal.

Real charcoal is not, but charcoal briquettes contain coal. You may find
this of interest.

Charcoal


This interesting description of the charcoal briquette manufacturing process
was posted to another list to which I subscribe. I thought some of you
might find the description of the process and even more, the extra
ingredients incorporated into the briquettes very interesting, in light of
several threads on this list in the past.



Rodney





Recently, I had a chance to tour a BBQ charcoal test lab and thought it
might be of interest to some of you. A friend works for the parent company
that owns this charcoal briquette company and invited me up for a tour. I
have been asked to not use the name of the parent company or the name of the
briquette charcoal maker, but I can tell you that it is the largest supplier
of cooking briquettes in the country and it's name is usually the first one
mentioned when talking about charcoal briquettes.



Their high-volume > manufacturing facilities are located in about 6
locations in North America, but their R&D/test lab is just up the road in
Pleasenton, Cal. I also found out that the barbecue cooking charcoal
industry was started by Henry Ford, who wanted to do something with the
scrap wood, shavings and sawdust byproducts from his automobile
manufacturing plants. The model T used wood spoke wheels, while wood braces
were also used extensively throughout the body. This will also give a hint
as to the name of the briquette company.



Its funny how this lab resembled a large pyro work shop. There were several
55gal drums of various types of charcoal, charcoal grinding machines,
tumblers and mixing bowls. There were also electro-hydraulic presses for
pressing single briquettes and a really neat machine that would mass produce
the briquettes. Some parts of this lab were also dirty, with tools coated
with a fine charcoal dust.



The briquettes can be made from retort produced charcoal and retort produced
low-sulfur coal. Chunky charcoal was passed through a grinder to get the
desired particle size. This ground charcoal looked to have variable mesh
sizes from airfloat to ~10 mesh. There were also some drums of uncarbonized
wood chips, like sawdust, that might be added for a smoky flavor. Burn-rate
stabilizers, like sodium nitrate are used, as are corn starch binders and
limestone, which acts as a burn-rate inhibitor. When these briquettes are
used for pyro effects, it could be a combination of things that give the
longer lasting sparks and the general poor performance when used in
lift-quality BP.



I was surprised that coal was used. The various charcoals and limestone
powder were weighed and put into a large tumbler, minus the grinding media,
for a thorough mixing of the dry materials. The starch binders are added to
water and cooked to form a sticky liquid. After cooking, the sodium nitrate
is added to the liquid, followed by the mixed dry materials. All of this
composition is put into a large mixing bowl, like those found in a bakery,
and the entire batch is blended. It looked like a big batch of charcoal star
composition.



Another interesting bit of information is that the formula in these
briquettes is not the same from one mfg. plant to another. The various
plants make use of the local available natural resources and thus, the types
of wood used, the amount of retorted coal and the amount of additives can
vary. What they strive for is uniform burn performance when cooking food and
the formula is modified to give the desired uniformity.



Individual briquettes could be pressed with one of the hydraulic presses by
using a split-mold. Scoop some moist comp into the mold and press to the
desired pressure. The more interesting briquette maker consisted of multiple
cavity, rotating circular molds, that resembled ~18" diameter stainless
steel discs, about 4-5" thick. These were very heavy and were paired to give
briquettes of different shapes and sizes. These discs rotated on powered
axles that were parallel to the floor and were positioned such that the
circumferential surfaces of both circular molds were in contact with each
other.



Each wheel had machined into its outer surface, several 1/2 briquette
cavities and the wheels were timed with respect to each other, so that the
cavity on one wheel met the cavity on the other wheel at the horizontal
tangential spot between the two axles. The right wheel rotated
counterclockwise, while the left wheel rotated clockwise. This is hard to
explain, but imagine what the old-fashioned washing machine wringers looked
like. Now imagine short wringers with cavities machined into each surface.



There was a large funnel-shaped hopper above the rotating wheels, that the
moist comp was poured into. Gravity allowed the moist comp to fall into the
rotating dies, where it would fill each of the cavities. As the wheels
turned, the cavities (filled with comp) would come together and form a
rotary pressed briquette, which would fall out as the wheels separated and
continued to rotate. Overflow comp was collected at the bottom and replaced
into the hopper. I looked at this and imagined a spherical star making
machine pressing hundreds of stars a minute.



The newly pressed briquettes were collected on large screens and put into
drying ovens. Once dried, they could be tested for ease of ignition, burn
rate, heat output, etc.



It was an interesting tour.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
>
> Except that charcoal is not made from coal - it's made from wood.
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

Wood is just one of many ingredients of charcoal briquetts. See this
information from Garry Howard and Kingsford.

I got this back in response to my request for information from Kingsford
about their charcoal. It looks like a form letter. It does confirm the use
of anthracite coal, mineral charcoal (whatever that is), sodium nitrate,
limestone, and borax. Plus it's made from "waste wood". Waste from what I
wonder. I think I'm going to stick with the lump charcoal. At least I know
it started out as a hunk of wood. It's also interesting that Kingsford is
now owned by Clorox.

Garry Howard - Cambridge, MA -
Garry's BBQ Pit - http://bbq.netrelief.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Mail, Clorox ]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 9:29 AM
To: ;
Subject: E-Mail Message


Dear Mr. Howard:

Thank you for asking about KINGSFORD charcoal briquets.

Nobody knows when or where charcoal was invented, but traces of it have
been discovered in archeological digs of Neanderthal sites, and cavemen
used it to draw pictures of mastodons and other early animals. The
modern charcoal briquet was invented by automaker Henry Ford. Ford
operated a sawmill in the forests around Iron Mountain, Michigan, in the
years prior to 1920 to make wooden parts for his Model T. As the piles
of wood scraps began to grow, so did Ford's eagerness to find an
efficient way of using them. He learned of a process developed and
patented by an Orin F. Stafford. The process involved chipping wood
into small pieces, converting it into charcoal, grinding the charcoal
into powder, adding a binder and compressing the mix into the
now-familiar, pillow-shaped briquet. By 1921, a charcoal-making plant
was in full operation.

E. G. Kingsford, a lumberman who owned one of Ford's earliest automobile
sales agencies and was distantly related, briefly served as manager of
the briquet operation. A company town was built nearby and named
Kingsford. In 1951, an investment group bought the plant, and renamed
the business the Kingsford Chemical Company, and took over operations.
Its successor, The Kingsford Products Company, was acquired by The
Clorox Company of Oakland, California, in 1973.

Today, KINGSFORD charcoal is manufactured from wood charcoal, anthracite
coal, mineral charcoal, starch, sodium nitrate, limestone, sawdust, and
borax. The wood and other high-carbon materials are heated in special
ovens with little or no air. This process removes water, nitrogen and
other elements, leaving almost pure carbon. The briquets do not contain
petroleum or any petroleum by-products. KINGSFORD charcoal briquets
with mesquite contain the same high-quality ingredients as KINGSFORD,
but with the addition of real mesquite wood throughout.

Manufacturing briquets begins with preparing the wood charcoal using one
of the following methods:

Retort processing -- Waste wood is processed through a large
furnace with multiple hearths (called a retort) in a
controlled-oxygen atmosphere. The wood is progressively
charred as it drops from one hearth to the next.

Kiln processing -- The waste wood is cut into slabs and stacked in
batches in a kiln that chars the wood in a
controlled-oxygen atmosphere.

Once the wood charcoal is prepared, it is crushed and combined with the
other ingredients, formed into pillow-shaped briquets and dried. The
advantage of using charcoal over wood is that charcoal burns hotter with
less smoke.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Again, thank you for your
interest in The Kingsford Products Company.

Jessica D. Jago
Product Specialist

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
>>
>> Except that charcoal is not made from coal - it's made from wood.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Aitken
>
> Wood is just one of many ingredients of charcoal briquetts. See this
> information from Garry Howard and Kingsford.
>
> I got this back in response to my request for information from Kingsford
> about their charcoal. It looks like a form letter. It does confirm the use
> of anthracite coal, mineral charcoal (whatever that is), sodium nitrate,
> limestone, and borax. Plus it's made from "waste wood". Waste from what I
> wonder. I think I'm going to stick with the lump charcoal. At least I know
> it started out as a hunk of wood. It's also interesting that Kingsford is
> now owned by Clorox.
>

Yikes! I too will stick to the lump charcoal from now on. Waste wood indeed!


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
>>
>>>Except that charcoal is not made from coal - it's made from wood.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Peter Aitken
>>
>>Wood is just one of many ingredients of charcoal briquetts. See this
>>information from Garry Howard and Kingsford.
>>
>>I got this back in response to my request for information from Kingsford
>>about their charcoal. It looks like a form letter. It does confirm the use
>>of anthracite coal, mineral charcoal (whatever that is), sodium nitrate,
>>limestone, and borax. Plus it's made from "waste wood". Waste from what I
>>wonder. I think I'm going to stick with the lump charcoal. At least I know
>>it started out as a hunk of wood. It's also interesting that Kingsford is
>>now owned by Clorox.
>>
>
>
> Yikes! I too will stick to the lump charcoal from now on. Waste wood indeed!
>
>
Waste wood is generally stumps, large limbs, tops of the trees, the
"waste" that has no value other than to chip it up leave it on the land.
Instead the charcoal companies buy it and, ta da!, make charcoal out of
it. The minerals Kingsford is referring to is what holds the briquettes
together. The charcoal makers grind the charcoal up, sweep up the dust,
etc, then combine it with the other chemicals, etc to bind it and shape
it into the briquettes. I've watched the manufacture of charcoal on a
couple of occasions but wasn't aware that some put antracite coal into
their mix and I have no idea what mineral charcoal is either.

George, who is often curious enough to visit a factory to see what and
how they make things. You should visit a whiskey distillery, ain't
nothing like the sight of your favorite tipple being made.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:42:29 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

>"Cape Cod Bob" > wrote in message
>news
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:35:48 -0700, Louis Cohen
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>There are microwave bacon cookers, and the burgers are better in the
>>>broiler or on the grill anyway.
>>
>> I am always amazed that so many people think cooking on a charcoal or
>> gas outdoor grille adds flavor. It doesn't. What adds the "flavor"
>> is the fact that these are hot heat sources, which brown the meat -=
>> the Maillard reaction. Charcoal or lava rocks add NO flavor - NONE.
>>
>
>You are mistaken. Flavor is added by drippings that fall onto the charcoal
>or lava rocks and sizzle. The resulting smoke is what adds the flavor.

You get fat drippings to smoke i n a fry pan AND the smoke is closer
to the meat so MORE is absorbed. Nevertheless, most of the flavor is
browning not smoke.
------------
There are no atheists in foxholes
or in Fenway Park in an extra inning
game.
____

Cape Cod Bob
Visit my web site at http://home.comcast.net/~bobmethelis
Delete the two "spam"s for email

Cape Cod Bob wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:35:48 -0700, Louis Cohen
> > wrote:
>
>
>>There are microwave bacon cookers, and the burgers are better in the
>>broiler or on the grill anyway.
>
>
> I am always amazed that so many people think cooking on a charcoal or
> gas outdoor grille adds flavor. It doesn't. What adds the "flavor"
> is the fact that these are hot heat sources, which brown the meat -=
> the Maillard reaction. Charcoal or lava rocks add NO flavor - NONE.
>
> I achieve a better product by cooking on my stove top in a very, very
> hot fry pan (often cast iron) than any broiler or grill. I can more
> closely control the meat's degree of doneness and amount of char since
> I can see the meat cook.
>
> ------------
> There are no atheists in foxholes
> or in Fenway Park in an extra inning
> game.
> ____
>
> Cape Cod Bob
> Visit my web site at http://home.comcast.net/~bobmethelis
> Delete the two "spam"s for email
It's not just a smoke flavor; I prefer having the grease drip off
through the grill (or broiler pan) rather than having the meat sit in it.

--

================================================== =============
Regards

Louis Cohen

"Yes, yes, I will desalinate you, you grande morue!"

Émile Zola, Assommoir 1877