 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Cast iron, revisited.
We have two 8-inch CI skillets. One is a newish Wagners, which, unlike
the big one, is recent enough that its inside bottom is not ground smooth. The other is a Griswold, which I bought in a junque shoppe in MA when I was bringing the boat back from Maine. I bought it because it has a smooth bottom. 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. FWIW Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:34:10 -0500, Rodney Myrvaagnes
> wrote: >We have two 8-inch CI skillets. One is a newish Wagners, which, unlike >the big one, is recent enough that its inside bottom is not ground >smooth. > >The other is a Griswold, which I bought in a junque shoppe in MA when >I was bringing the boat back from Maine. I bought it because it has a >smooth bottom. > >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. > > >FWIW > > > >Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC > >Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas Hi Rodney, A buck's worth of silicon carbide paper from the hardware store plus about twenty minutes of mindless labor, and you will be able to smooth the bottom of the newer pan. Let me know if you would like details... All the best, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:34:10 -0500, Rodney Myrvaagnes
> wrote: >We have two 8-inch CI skillets. One is a newish Wagners, which, unlike >the big one, is recent enough that its inside bottom is not ground >smooth. > >The other is a Griswold, which I bought in a junque shoppe in MA when >I was bringing the boat back from Maine. I bought it because it has a >smooth bottom. > >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. > > >FWIW > > > >Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC > >Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas Hi Rodney, A buck's worth of silicon carbide paper from the hardware store plus about twenty minutes of mindless labor, and you will be able to smooth the bottom of the newer pan. Let me know if you would like details... All the best, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:10:29 -0500, Kenneth
> wrote: > >Hi Rodney, > >A buck's worth of silicon carbide paper from the hardware >store plus about twenty minutes of mindless labor, and you >will be able to smooth the bottom of the newer pan. > >Let me know if you would like details... > >All the best, Good thought. I just remembered a right-angle disc grinder around here somewhere that might cut that to 5 minutes. Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:10:29 -0500, Kenneth
> wrote: > >Hi Rodney, > >A buck's worth of silicon carbide paper from the hardware >store plus about twenty minutes of mindless labor, and you >will be able to smooth the bottom of the newer pan. > >Let me know if you would like details... > >All the best, Good thought. I just remembered a right-angle disc grinder around here somewhere that might cut that to 5 minutes. Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>From: Rodney Myrvaagnes
>We have two 8-inch CI skillets. One is a newish Wagners, which, unlike >the big one, is recent enough that its inside bottom is not ground >smooth. > (snipped for brevity) My experience with cast iron is that the roughness will smooth out with use. I have bought several pieces of cast iron cookware over the last 30 years and have observed this change. The more you use it, the sooner it will become *smooth*. I'm not a chemist or anything but I believe it has something to do with the heating and cooling over a prolinged time. (if someone can explain the process I'd love to learn more) The little bumps also seem to allow the seasoning to adhere better to the pans. *shrugs* I don't think I'd sand it down if I were you. *cheers* Barb Anne |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>From: Rodney Myrvaagnes
>We have two 8-inch CI skillets. One is a newish Wagners, which, unlike >the big one, is recent enough that its inside bottom is not ground >smooth. > (snipped for brevity) My experience with cast iron is that the roughness will smooth out with use. I have bought several pieces of cast iron cookware over the last 30 years and have observed this change. The more you use it, the sooner it will become *smooth*. I'm not a chemist or anything but I believe it has something to do with the heating and cooling over a prolinged time. (if someone can explain the process I'd love to learn more) The little bumps also seem to allow the seasoning to adhere better to the pans. *shrugs* I don't think I'd sand it down if I were you. *cheers* Barb Anne |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 22:58:19 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote: > >"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. > I have no problem with that. The Griswold I have is the 8 inch, as is the rough Wagners that I weighed and just ground. They are not enough larger than the burner to make the heat transmission differences, if any, evident. What is immediately evident is that the 11 3/4 inch Wagners has noticeable unevenness, and that, heavy as it is, the bottom is thinner than the Calphalon saute pan, either size. BTW, the large Calphalon is no lightweight either, but it has a second handle on the other side. Between the 8-in pans, the Griswold is more finely finished overall, and I could believe, without a way of checking, that the casting is more uniform, more bubblefree, etc. It would matter more in the large size, if true. One undeniable advantage of the Griswold would be quicker response to heat changes, but when that is important the Calphalon has it all over either of them. I don't see enough potential benefit to look for a large Griswold. I will continue to use both 8-inch pans and report if I can tell any difference in use, but I am not going to undertake ascientific double blind experiment. Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>>"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. >> >I have no problem with that. The Griswold I have is the 8 inch, as is >the rough Wagners that I weighed and just ground. They are not enough >larger than the burner to make the heat transmission differences, if >any, evident. > >What is immediately evident is that the 11 3/4 inch Wagners has >noticeable unevenness, and that, heavy as it is, the bottom is thinner >than the Calphalon saute pan, either size. BTW, the large Calphalon is >no lightweight either, but it has a second handle on the other side. > >Between the 8-in pans, the Griswold is more finely finished overall, >and I could believe, without a way of checking, that the casting is >more uniform, more bubblefree, etc. > >It would matter more in the large size, if true. > >One undeniable advantage of the Griswold would be quicker response to >heat changes, but when that is important the Calphalon has it all over >either of them. > >I don't see enough potential benefit to look for a large Griswold. I >will continue to use both 8-inch pans and report if I can tell any >difference in use, but I am not going to undertake ascientific double >blind experiment. > > > >Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC > >Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas > I have a set of Le Creuset that I love, and a set of stainless steel pots - so I was set. Then friends gave me some Pampered Chef non-stick pots and pans that they couldn't sell at a garage sale. Now, another friend will be getting rid of his mother's Calphalon. At first I said no, but should I take them? I would pay him for them as he is in dire straits. I really don't need more pots and pans but are these good? His mom was my second mom when I was far away from my mom. Merry Christmas! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>>"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. >> >I have no problem with that. The Griswold I have is the 8 inch, as is >the rough Wagners that I weighed and just ground. They are not enough >larger than the burner to make the heat transmission differences, if >any, evident. > >What is immediately evident is that the 11 3/4 inch Wagners has >noticeable unevenness, and that, heavy as it is, the bottom is thinner >than the Calphalon saute pan, either size. BTW, the large Calphalon is >no lightweight either, but it has a second handle on the other side. > >Between the 8-in pans, the Griswold is more finely finished overall, >and I could believe, without a way of checking, that the casting is >more uniform, more bubblefree, etc. > >It would matter more in the large size, if true. > >One undeniable advantage of the Griswold would be quicker response to >heat changes, but when that is important the Calphalon has it all over >either of them. > >I don't see enough potential benefit to look for a large Griswold. I >will continue to use both 8-inch pans and report if I can tell any >difference in use, but I am not going to undertake ascientific double >blind experiment. > > > >Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC > >Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas > I have a set of Le Creuset that I love, and a set of stainless steel pots - so I was set. Then friends gave me some Pampered Chef non-stick pots and pans that they couldn't sell at a garage sale. Now, another friend will be getting rid of his mother's Calphalon. At first I said no, but should I take them? I would pay him for them as he is in dire straits. I really don't need more pots and pans but are these good? His mom was my second mom when I was far away from my mom. Merry Christmas! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:34:10 -0500, Rodney Myrvaagnes
> wrote: >We have two 8-inch CI skillets. One is a newish Wagners, which, unlike >the big one, is recent enough that its inside bottom is not ground >smooth. > >The other is a Griswold, which I bought in a junque shoppe in MA when >I was bringing the boat back from Maine. I bought it because it has a >smooth bottom. > >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. Griswolds are preferable, then? > > >FWIW > > > >Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC > >Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rodney Myrvaagnes > wrote in
: > On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 22:58:19 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" > > wrote: > > > > >"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. > > > I have no problem with that. The Griswold I have is the 8 inch, as > is the rough Wagners that I weighed and just ground. They are not > enough larger than the burner to make the heat transmission > differences, if any, evident. > > What is immediately evident is that the 11 3/4 inch Wagners has > noticeable unevenness, and that, heavy as it is, the bottom is > thinner than the Calphalon saute pan, either size. BTW, the large > Calphalon is no lightweight either, but it has a second handle on > the other side. > > Between the 8-in pans, the Griswold is more finely finished overall, > and I could believe, without a way of checking, that the casting is > more uniform, more bubblefree, etc. > > It would matter more in the large size, if true. > > One undeniable advantage of the Griswold would be quicker response > to heat changes, but when that is important the Calphalon has it all > over either of them. > > I don't see enough potential benefit to look for a large Griswold. I > will continue to use both 8-inch pans and report if I can tell any > difference in use, but I am not going to undertake ascientific > double blind experiment. > > > > Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC > > Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas As far as I Know Cast Iron's slow response to heat change is it's strongest virtue. It means that there is less likely to be hot spots, and once a temperature has been reached it doesn't vary much. -- Starchless in Manitoba. Type 2 Diabetic 1AC 5.6mmol or 101mg/dl |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rodney Myrvaagnes > wrote in
: > On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 22:58:19 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" > > wrote: > > > > >"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. > > > I have no problem with that. The Griswold I have is the 8 inch, as > is the rough Wagners that I weighed and just ground. They are not > enough larger than the burner to make the heat transmission > differences, if any, evident. > > What is immediately evident is that the 11 3/4 inch Wagners has > noticeable unevenness, and that, heavy as it is, the bottom is > thinner than the Calphalon saute pan, either size. BTW, the large > Calphalon is no lightweight either, but it has a second handle on > the other side. > > Between the 8-in pans, the Griswold is more finely finished overall, > and I could believe, without a way of checking, that the casting is > more uniform, more bubblefree, etc. > > It would matter more in the large size, if true. > > One undeniable advantage of the Griswold would be quicker response > to heat changes, but when that is important the Calphalon has it all > over either of them. > > I don't see enough potential benefit to look for a large Griswold. I > will continue to use both 8-inch pans and report if I can tell any > difference in use, but I am not going to undertake ascientific > double blind experiment. > > > > Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC > > Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas As far as I Know Cast Iron's slow response to heat change is it's strongest virtue. It means that there is less likely to be hot spots, and once a temperature has been reached it doesn't vary much. -- Starchless in Manitoba. Type 2 Diabetic 1AC 5.6mmol or 101mg/dl |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> Bubbabob blubbers:
> >I wouldn't trade my pre-'30's Griswold for a dozen Wagners of ANY vintage. Not even the one with the warped bottom. You're saying your old lady has a warped bottom... that's not very kind. ---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =--- ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =--- ********* "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation." Sheldon ```````````` |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> Bubbabob blubbers:
> >I wouldn't trade my pre-'30's Griswold for a dozen Wagners of ANY vintage. Not even the one with the warped bottom. You're saying your old lady has a warped bottom... that's not very kind. ---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =--- ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =--- ********* "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation." Sheldon ```````````` |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 14:11:49 GMT, Hahabogus >
wrote: >> Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas > >As far as I Know Cast Iron's slow response to heat change is it's >strongest virtue. It means that there is less likely to be hot spots, and >once a temperature has been reached it doesn't vary much. > >-- That is a sometimes virtue, but the Calphalon is better at avoiding hot spots because it spreads the heat more evenly and quickly. Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a "Wanting to meet a writer because you like his work is like wanting to meet a duck because you like pate." Margaret Atwood |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 14:11:49 GMT, Hahabogus >
wrote: >> Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas > >As far as I Know Cast Iron's slow response to heat change is it's >strongest virtue. It means that there is less likely to be hot spots, and >once a temperature has been reached it doesn't vary much. > >-- That is a sometimes virtue, but the Calphalon is better at avoiding hot spots because it spreads the heat more evenly and quickly. Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a "Wanting to meet a writer because you like his work is like wanting to meet a duck because you like pate." Margaret Atwood |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In rec.food.cooking, Rodney Myrvaagnes > wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 14:11:49 GMT, Hahabogus > > wrote: > >As far as I Know Cast Iron's slow response to heat change is it's > >strongest virtue. It means that there is less likely to be hot spots, and > >once a temperature has been reached it doesn't vary much. > > > That is a sometimes virtue, but the Calphalon is better at avoiding > hot spots because it spreads the heat more evenly and quickly. Both traits are useful, but it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. I have some massive cast iron, and a selection of thick aluminium. Neither is best for everything. The cast iron is good for retaining heat. The aluminuim is good for conducting heat. Both get searing hot, to the point where the oil smokes. The aluminium is more easily controlled, while the cast iron can't be beat for getting huge amounts of heat into a thick piece of cold food. I use aluminium for sauteing thin stuff, and I use the cast iron to sear big roasts (among other things). A six or seven pound pot roast doesn't faze my massive Lodge dutch oven - when I flip it over, the bottom is browned and the cold top starts sizzling immediately. OTOH, my large Calphalon "Everyday Pan" can spread the heat from a smallish flame to all parts of the pan quickly and consistently. I like them both. -- In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. -- Dwight David Eisenhower |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>>I have a set of Le Creuset that I love, and a set of stainless steel pots -
>so >>I was set. >>Then friends gave me some Pampered Chef non-stick pots and pans that they >>couldn't sell at a garage sale. Now, another friend will be getting rid of >his >>mother's Calphalon. At first I said no, but should I take them? I would >pay >>him for them as he is in dire straits. I really don't need more pots and >pans >>but are these good? His mom was my second mom when I was far away from my >mom. > > >Calphalon has made a lot of different pots and pans. Mostly they are >thick aluminum that spread heat very well. The anodizing doesn't hold >up as well as th enon-stick surface in my experience. I abuse them by >putting them in the DW, which they don't want you to do. > >The ones I find valuable all have split riveted handles and glass lids >that seal very well. I have a saucepan, a 10-inch sautee pan, and a >really big sautee pan that doesn't get that much use. > >If you can get some Calphalon for not much try it. You may find it >useful. > > > >Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC >J36 Gjo/a Thanks, Rodney. I will take these pots and pans if my friend hasn't disposed of them yet. I would pay him well for them, although I don't "need" them, as he will lose his condo this month. I can't prevent this foreclosure but I can help out a little bit. They would have some sentimental value, too, as I've had many meals cooked in these pots and and pans. Boy, Marie was a great cook! M go Blue! > >"Wanting to meet a writer because you like his work is like wanting to meet a >duck because you like pate." >Margaret Atwood > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
What I like best about CI is the way it "seasons". When you are
browning floured meat, the surface of the pan picks up much less of the flour coating than other surfaces that I have used, mainly heavy aluminium and enameled cast iron. They tend to accumulate the maillardized flour on the bottom of the pan. What this amounts to is that you can use higher heat with cast iron and work faster. Uncoated spun steel saute pans also do this well. D.M. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
What I like best about CI is the way it "seasons". When you are
browning floured meat, the surface of the pan picks up much less of the flour coating than other surfaces that I have used, mainly heavy aluminium and enameled cast iron. They tend to accumulate the maillardized flour on the bottom of the pan. What this amounts to is that you can use higher heat with cast iron and work faster. Uncoated spun steel saute pans also do this well. D.M. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kenneth" > wrote in message > You wrote: "you can use higher heat with cast iron and work > faster." > > Why can not other pans be heated to the same temperature? > Some pans will warp at the same heat CI can easily take. This is especially true of cheap, thin pans. Tri-;ply pans are made of different metals. At very high heat they will expand at slightly different rates. This can cause delamination. Most any pan with a liquid in it cannot be overheated. CI, OTOH, can be preheated to very high temperature when dry. Good for steaks and blackened foods. -- Ed http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kenneth" > wrote in message > You wrote: "you can use higher heat with cast iron and work > faster." > > Why can not other pans be heated to the same temperature? > Some pans will warp at the same heat CI can easily take. This is especially true of cheap, thin pans. Tri-;ply pans are made of different metals. At very high heat they will expand at slightly different rates. This can cause delamination. Most any pan with a liquid in it cannot be overheated. CI, OTOH, can be preheated to very high temperature when dry. Good for steaks and blackened foods. -- Ed http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/ |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Porcelain coated iron vs. cast iron skillet | Cooking Equipment | |||
| Porcelain coated iron vs. cast iron skillet | General Cooking | |||
| Porcelain coated iron vs. cast iron skillet | Cooking Equipment | |||
| cleaning cast iron revisited | General Cooking | |||
| Making cast iron skillet non-stick (revisited) | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
