jmcquown wrote:
> My middle brother gave me a couple of All-Clad pans a few years ago at
> Christmas. That was nice of him and they are nice pans. Except the pans
> don't have lids. If I want to simmer something (like rice) which requires
> covering, I have to use heavy duty aluminium foil to cover the pan. I
> looked on the All-Clad website and they have an entire section devoted to
> buying lids to fit the pans. HUH?! You have to buy the lids separately?!
> And at over $20 each? Is it just me or is this really crazy?

I've never seen a pan with a matching lid. I use the foil, or a lid from
a big pot if it fits. But it is extremely rare that I need to close it up.

jmcquown wrote:
> So... what? My brother gave me the pans without the lids?! LOL

Maybe he sold them for $19 a piece!

Michael Archon Sequoia Nielsen wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
> > My middle brother gave me a couple of All-Clad pans a few years ago at
> > Christmas. That was nice of him and they are nice pans. Except the pans
> > don't have lids. If I want to simmer something (like rice) which requires
> > covering, I have to use heavy duty aluminium foil to cover the pan. I
> > looked on the All-Clad website and they have an entire section devoted to
> > buying lids to fit the pans. HUH?! You have to buy the lids separately?!
> > And at over $20 each?
>
> I've never seen a pan with a matching lid.

You never leave your cave.

jmcquown wrote:

> > Jill, grab yourself a universal lid, sure won't cost you much.
> >
> > nancy
>
> Where would I find one of those? It would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Jill

Universal lids usually come big size fits all. BUT big lid on a smaller
pan creates a condensation problem on my stove top. Drops run to the
outside and create a puddle.
Of course if I lived in the North where houses don't have a permanent
tilt this may not happen.

"projectile vomit chick" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 05:29:07 -0500, in rec.food.cooking, "jmcquown"
> > hit the crackpipe and declared:
>>My middle brother gave me a couple of All-Clad pans a few years ago at
>>Christmas. That was nice of him and they are nice pans. Except the pans
>>don't have lids. If I want to simmer something (like rice) which requires
>>covering, I have to use heavy duty aluminium foil to cover the pan. I
>>looked on the All-Clad website and they have an entire section devoted to
>>buying lids to fit the pans. HUH?! You have to buy the lids separately?!
>>And at over $20 each? Is it just me or is this really crazy?
>>
>>Jill
>>
>
Christmas will be coming up in a few months -- hint for some lids.
I see that lids fitting 1 & 2 qt pans are $25.95 each here. There was a 45%
sale on an email that came thru this morning, but I didn't see any lids.
http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=167411

Watch out -- don't get any nasty burns from using aluminum foil.
Dee Dee

"Sheldon" > wrote:
> A 1 qt pot is too small to cook a cup of rice... and too small for egg
> drop or any other kind of soup for two.... whadaya do, fill it to the
> tippy top, how do you stir... no wonder your stove looks like slob
> city, everything boils over.

I see Sheldon has some problems with basic math, not that it is
unexpected...

Is Sheldon talking about a cup of uncooked rice, or a cup of cooked rice? A
cup (8 ounces) of cooked rice will obviously fit very comfortably in a quart
(32 ounce) pot. A cup of uncooked rice will not fit very well in a quart pot
when cooked, but then that yields at least 4 to 6 servings. What part of
"cooking for one or two" does Sheldon not understand? Maybe he eats 4 to 6
servings himself at one sitting?

On the soup, a 10 to 12 ounce serving is quite generous if it is not the
only thing being eaten at a meal. It will obviously fit in a 32 ounce (1
quart) pot. Perhaps Sheldon considers a quart to be a single serving?

I think it's time to get the flash cards back out, Sheldon. Didn't they
cover this basic stuff in the 4th grade? I guess you weren't paying
attention.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

wff_ng_7 wrote:

> "Sheldon" > wrote:
> > A 1 qt pot is too small to cook a cup of rice... and too small for egg
> > drop or any other kind of soup for two.... whadaya do, fill it to the
> > tippy top, how do you stir... no wonder your stove looks like slob
> > city, everything boils over.
>
> I see Sheldon has some problems with basic math, not that it is
> unexpected...
>

He seems to have difficulty with a lot of issues that involve reality. When I
suggested a few days ago that most sets of cooking pots came with a variety of
diameters he was quick to disagree and claimed that his 6, 8 and 10 qt. set were
all the same diameter and used the same lids. While it may be that the larger
pots do get deeper, since there is no point in making them wider than burners
and stove tops can handle, the smaller pots that are more commonly used by
modern families and which are usually sold in sets, come in a variety of
diameters each with their own tops. They typically come in 14 16, 18 and 20 cm
diameters.


> Is Sheldon talking about a cup of uncooked rice, or a cup of cooked rice? A
> cup (8 ounces) of cooked rice will obviously fit very comfortably in a quart
> (32 ounce) pot. A cup of uncooked rice will not fit very well in a quart pot
> when cooked, but then that yields at least 4 to 6 servings. What part of
> "cooking for one or two" does Sheldon not understand? Maybe he eats 4 to 6
> servings himself at one sitting?

One had to consider the source there. One quart is 32 oz. One cup of rice and
two cups of water is 24 oz. The pot is roughly 3/4 filled. That leaves 1/4 of
the height for the rice to bubble over, a problem you have only when it is left
covered on a burner that is too hot.

> I think it's time to get the flash cards back out, Sheldon. Didn't they
> cover this basic stuff in the 4th grade? I guess you weren't paying
> attention.

Some people just like to disagree. Others get their facts straight or think
things through before responding.

"Dave Smith" > wrote:
> He seems to have difficulty with a lot of issues that involve reality.
> When I
> suggested a few days ago that most sets of cooking pots came with a
> variety of
> diameters he was quick to disagree and claimed that his 6, 8 and 10 qt.
> set were
> all the same diameter and used the same lids. While it may be that the
> larger
> pots do get deeper, since there is no point in making them wider than
> burners
> and stove tops can handle, the smaller pots that are more commonly used by
> modern families and which are usually sold in sets, come in a variety of
> diameters each with their own tops. They typically come in 14 16, 18 and
> 20 cm
> diameters.

I've got two sets of pots, one by All Clad (12 years old) and one by
International Cookware (20 years old). On the All Clad set, there were no
matches in lid size, but a separately purchased (try me) 1 quart pot has the
same size as the 2 quart pot in the set. On the International set, no pot
lids match, but the stock pot lid does fit the frying pan.

I did luck out on a having the lid to my 8 quart All Clad stock pot match
something else I bought. Years ago I bought a cheap black speckled enamel
seafood pot (10-12 quarts? with raised interior platform) at the
supermarket, only to find it didn't fit on my stove when I got home. The lid
on it was slightly domed, and would not fit under the upper oven on my 1970s
vintage double oven stove. By chance, the All Clad lid was exactly the same
diameter, but flat rather than domed, and the pot fit under the upper oven
with it. I can't open the oven door however, because it hits the lid handle.
I have the same problem with a tall stock pot where the lid handle prevents
opening the oven door.

> Some people just like to disagree. Others get their facts straight or
> think
> things through before responding.

I learned the "some people just like to disagree" thing many years ago with
my first roommate after college. Once I figured this out, life was a lot
easier. With this roommate, I could deliberately steer a discussion around
to the point where eventually he was vehemently arguing against his original
position. A few of those episodes and he wasn't so likely to start these
battles any more. Sheldon, on the other hand, will never learn... there's at
least a decade of history to show that.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
.. .
> My middle brother gave me a couple of All-Clad pans a few years ago at
> Christmas. That was nice of him and they are nice pans. Except the pans
> don't have lids. If I want to simmer something (like rice) which requires
> covering, I have to use heavy duty aluminium foil to cover the pan. I
> looked on the All-Clad website and they have an entire section devoted to
> buying lids to fit the pans. HUH?! You have to buy the lids separately?!
> And at over $20 each? Is it just me or is this really crazy?

The price of the pan remains the same, but the pans no longer gets lids -
thus making the pan-and-lid set you used to buy 25% more than the past one
for the same package.

Kind of like buying electronic equipment and finding out that old one-year
warranty has been replaced by a 30 day warranty - and you can buy the old
one-year warranty as a service contract - making the old electronic gizmo
25% more than the past one for the same package.

Or buying the 2.25 lb can of coffee in the 3 lb can -.

Or the new candy bars that are 2/3 the size of the old ones.

Or the 5 lb bags of sugar that are 4 lbs.

(It must really fake out any true inflation numbers and make economic
forecasting kind of "iffy".
Reminds me of the Reagan administrations changing of the definition of
"Unemployment" to "Unemployment Claims plus 'those in the BLS listed phone
survey looking for work' which cut "unemployment" by 3-5 % by cutting out
lower strata people who don't have listed phones, or how the government's
change from GNP to GDP suddenly increased productivity and lowered trade
imbalance, all in a swoop of the pen.)



>
> Jill
>
>

hob wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > My middle brother gave me a couple of All-Clad pans a few years ago at
> > Christmas. That was nice of him and they are nice pans. Except the pans
> > don't have lids. If I want to simmer something (like rice) which requires
> > covering, I have to use heavy duty aluminium foil to cover the pan. I
> > looked on the All-Clad website and they have an entire section devoted to
> > buying lids to fit the pans. HUH?! You have to buy the lids separately?!
> > And at over $20 each? Is it just me or is this really crazy?
>
> The price of the pan remains the same, but the pans no longer gets lids -
> thus making the pan-and-lid set you used to buy 25% more than the past one
> for the same package.

That's not true. Open stock high end commercial cookware has always
been available with lids sold separately... by your rationale you think
lids don't cost anything... well they do, and for professional kitchens
being forced to buy lids they don't need can add up to quite a few
dollars. All-Crap cookware can be purchased with or without lids,
depends mostly where purchased, but no matter where if the lids are
included then the cost will be higher to cover the cost of the lids....
there's no free lunch. And I see nothing wrong with keeping prices in
check by selling acoutrements separately... take PCs, the cost has come
down substantially over the past few years, but they no longer include
speakers, and often no monitor, and cables too. Most folks buying
replacement PCs don't need more speakers, monitors, and cables, so why
pay for something that will only get stored or given away.

Sheldon