/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>8996243
it heats better.

>>8996279
Fair enough I suppose.

But does it really heat better to warrant the extra cost?

Cuisinart stainless steel 8" skillet
>$20

Mauviel copper w/ stainless interior 8" skillet
>$200

Just seems like copper would have to be VERY fucking impressive performance-wise for me to pay that much.

>>8996291
Not really, especially for the home chef

>>8996291
you don't have to buy the most expensive top-of-the-line pan you can find.

>>8996301
That's not even the most expensive.

that's actually Mauviel's cheap line, it's the 150c (1.5mm copper).

Mauviel's "good" line is the 250c (2.5mm copper thickness)

>>8996291
>But does it really heat better to warrant the extra cost?

Depends on your personal situation and budget.

I own a few Demeyere Atlantis pots and pans. They're in this same price range. Expensive? Yes. But I am very satisfied. They cook so much better than cheap cookware, and they will last the rest of my life. For something that I use literally every day I think that's a sound investment.

You can buy quality once, or you can buy cheap shit over and over again.

Of course if you rarely cook then there's really no point...

>>8996291
You can find copper pots and pans at estate sales.They used to be common and inexpensive in like the 50s. Go find an old person who has died recently I'm willing to bet they had some old copper cookware that you can buy.

>>8996308
How much are you willing to bet?

>>8996316
seeing as every time i've got to an estate sale of some 80+ year old dead woman i've been able to find at least 1 copper pan or pot, i'd bet at least 20 bucks

>>8996319
solid

>>8996307
>You can buy quality once, or you can buy cheap shit over and over again.
Fair enough, I suppose I'll look for sales, or estate sale type shit like the other anon mentioned.

For the past year i've been cooking my own meals mostly, so I do enough cooking where it should make sense to buy once and be done with it.

>>8996370
There are other good sources to check.

Often times you can find high-end cookware at overstock stores. You can buy B-stock (items with tiny blemishes) at a discount. And there's also the never-ending stream of wedding gifts that get resold on Ebay.

>>8996394
>There are other good sources to check.
I've gotten palm cookware for very cheap at marshall's. home goods owns them so sometimes they get the shit that doesn't sell and you get lucky

>>8996434

Yeah, Marshall's is great for that. I've gotten a lot of All-Clad from them at a fraction of its typical cost.

>>8996291
I got mine for $10. $50 if I bought the whole set.

>>8996516
>got mine
What? Copper? Stainless?

>>8996520
I want to say it's stainless. It's a knockoff of the one in the infomercials, but it works great regardless.

>>8996520
I just realized I was being vague again. Sorry. It's a knockoff of the red copper pan from the infomercials, and I see them all over the place. They have 12'' skillet, a 10'' skillet, a square pan, and something similar to a wok.

Best things I got after my divorced aunt's death 3 years ago. (not joking)

>>8996243
Basically, faster and more even temperature control.

Copper provides the opposite functionality to cast iron. The latter has high mass and high energy density which means that when it gwts hot it holds a LOT of energy. Great for searing and high heat cooking. Copper, on the other hand, is great when you're doing something where precise temperature control and even heat are important- copper gets used a lot for high end pastry work and sauce work for this reason.


Clad stainless steel is kind of the happy medium. Better fine temperature control than cast iron or pure stainless, due to a copper or aluminum core, but better high-temp thermal properties and more durability than copper.

Aesthetics and more even precise temp control.

Copper is very attractive in the right kitchen.

It's the speed of heat transfer and the control of copper that I like so much. Only have 1 small Mauviel copper fry pan but I love it. Think of copper like a Lotus Elise and cast iron as an F-250. They both have their uses but one handles better.

I just use my copper skillet to make eggs and pancakes desu

>>8996840
That's like a shiny new copper jacketed .44 caliber flat-nosed bullet just waiting to be seated into a case.

Fuck, I want a copper pan now.

Copper is a cooler element than iron.

>>8996291
>But does it really heat better to warrant the extra cost?

fuck off you idiot. obviously this will vary depending on the individual. not everyone is as fucking desperately poor as you

>>8997377
Alright, lets see your copper collection, timestamp please

>>8996291
Comparing a cuisinart to mauviel is retarded.

I guess this is where OP got the picture from.

Seems like a decent price, I might get this.

>>8996319
you should know your copper if you do this, there is a lot of shit tier copper and copper-coated cookware that people think is worth way more than it's really worth. kind of like buying a used bike where for every diamond in the rough there are ten shitty hybrids with shitty suspension forks that the owner thinks is worth $600

>>8997377
You're just as poor as he is and in denial to boot.
Delicious.

>>8997424
>m'heritage

>>8997492
Yeah, but considering the price I think I can get over the memes.

It doesn't look like Mauviel makes this specific pan anymore, but all the sites online i'm finding are showing $199-249 for the same size, same thickness with a bronze handle. Which is generally less desirable than the Cast Iron handles anyway.

So for $99. I might just do it.

>>8997377
Daddy's gonna need to see that copper collection buddy boy :))) Need to lay my gross eyeballs on that collection! ;)

>>8997424
Not bad price

>>8996243
Status?
They're like $20. No one told you copper prices have been crashing for 6 years? You can strip wires for $1.50 an hour if you want, that shit's not for me.

>>8996291
mauviel pans are miles better than cuisinart
better comparison would be their stainless vs copper line
>10in skillet
copper = $210
stainless = $145
>8in saucepan
copper = $355
stainless = $220
etc etc

but yeah copper is a much more expensive material than stainless in general
probably not worth the extra price performance wise, but if you really like the look and basically the best you can get, then copper is probs what you want

what do you guys think of pans with that stickless finish on them?

>>8999678
>Status?
>They're like $20
find me a good copper pan that isn't at a yard sale for $20.

/ck/ has selective willingness to overspend for marginal improvements in end result

We're very willing to blow $20 on a 12oz bottle of 13% ABV beer imported from Liechtenstein or Aomori or some such place as long as it has more IBU than anything else ever recorded, but spending more than $6 on wine is for poseurs who have never heard of that buzzfeed about
"experts" being fooled, wine is a conspiracy to humiliate me.

We're glad to waste $120 a month on terrible tasting fast food, but $120 for a multi course meal makes us violently angry, why would anyone do that, I want it all served to me at once, in a heap, and if you bring that menu near me with the weird foreign words on it I'm going to have a mental breakdown, why is nice food a conspiracy to make me feel dumb?

We're more than happy to spend $40 on a single dry aged prime steak at a good butcher, but spending $40 on top tier fish is YUCKEE BONES AND EYES POO IN LOO OMG WHY CAN'T WE HAVE NORMAL FOOD?

And so it is with cookware, $100 for an autistically rubbed machined finish cast iron pan is totally sensible (I was born in the wrong decade, using the wrong tool for the job makes me a patrician) but $100 for copper is a scam.

Op, that pan is a good pan and that's a pretty decent price, for 8 inches you don't need the 2.5mm thickness, and you may appreciate the better responsiveness of 1.5mm. For a larger pan you should not look at the M150 line since it's too thin.

>>8999712
>For a larger pan you should not look at the M150 line since it's too thin.
My plan (i'm OP) was to get an 8" fry pan and a larger sauce pan (from the 2.5mm line) with lid. I'm almost always cooking for myself, and I have a 12" cast iron skillet if I need something larger than 8".

>>8999703
There's one in local ads here, which I wiped my ass with. Seriously. I ran out of toilet paper.

>>8999744
Oh no...it's retarded AND thinks it's better than everyone else.

>>8999748
I'll get the ad for you later today, it was in a rural king store.

I literally wiped my ass with it dude. It was paper.

>>8999760
Sure you did

>>8999769
It's not online, the papers cycle out tomorrow so I can still get one. See you at noon.

>>8996243
Only if you are anal about the temperature distribution across the vessel, maybe if you want the walls to have roughly the same temperature as the bottom. Otherwise, unless you are cooking on a welding torch and the flame is tiny it literally doesn't matter

>>9001404
Pretty much agree with this. I don't see any kind of dish cooked in a pan that would require copper. And the price increase is definitely not worth it when you factor in fragility and maintenance. They do look cool though.

Now, for pâtisserie, that's a whole other thing. Copper molds or copper pots can make the critical difference when making complex preparation that require a strict temperature control. Sugars and caramels come to.mind, cannelés are another example. In these case I believe it's worth it.

>>9001775
Each of the gas burners on my stove measures 2.3" in diameter. The size of the flame is directly proportional to how high I have the heat on

When I'm cooking two duck breasts in a large pan, copper makes a big difference because it needs to be low heat

Some people just assume everyone else's cooking environment is just like their own. Of course, if you have a high end stove, then heat distribution matters less

I fully expect some autist to misquote Modernist Cuisine now. It's fine, go ahead and argue with yourself. I have to go for a bit but I'll be back later if you want to argue

>>8999772
>see you at noon
>12 hours ago
>posted at 8am

>>8999680
well for one thing you're not supposed to use any metal utensils in the non-stick pans or they will scar irreversibly and the coating is ruined, like the one in your pic

they have good uses, particularly with cooking fish and eggs

not really suitable for extremely high heat cookery

>>8997424
Now that that one ended, they have another one.

Cheapest price elsewhere is $155-190

>>8996291
when you start talking about cost we all know you're poor. If you weren't concerned with money you go for the best option right, copper bottomed pans are objectively better at heat distribution/retention than just steel

>>9002064
You can care about price for performance and not be poor.

>>9002074
definitely true, not the feeling I got from the first few posts though. especially -
>But does it really heat better to warrant the extra cost?

>>9002095
well I bought it, so I guess i'm not THAT poor?

>>9002096
clearly you're just a poor person overcompensating due to the pressures of the /ck/ community and our intense elitism and exclusionary tendencies

>>9002104
Yes truly that's it. Couldn't be the people who made valid arguments for it's use for fine temperature control and even heating.

>>8999712
>And so it is with cookware, $100 for an autistically rubbed machined finish cast iron pan is totally sensible (I was born in the wrong decade, using the wrong tool for the job makes me a patrician) but $100 for copper is a scam.
Who the hell buys expensive CI. It's aboard favorite because it's cheaper than the steak it'll be use to cook. You were doing well with your analogy until then.

The real reason no one likes copper here is no-one cooks anything delicate enough to need copper and the fact that those who do own it tend to be insufferable about it. Think about it, people post about $500 stand mixers and blenders here all the time and no-one thinks they're selling snake-oil. But copper fags always have to compare it to CI and bring out the charts proving how much better it is to be rich.

>>8996279
The starting point of better heat distribution starts at using a coal fire, not copperware.

>>9002147
I don't think people who buy $500 stand mixers are "selling snake oil". I do think they watched too much youtube. 95% of those things are bought by women so they can do some macarons or NURDY NUMMIES they saw on youtube, and then never touched again.

a pan, on the other hand, is something that gets used every day because pans are for food, not R2-D2 cupcakes.

>>9002250
Stand mixers are only really useful if you bake bread. Although you can definitely make great bread without it. However the fact is $500 mixers are better than $100 mixers by a fair margin. Same with blenders. A $500 blender is far better than a $100 one. But a $200 pan is not that much better than a $40 pan. That's about it really. If $150 is chump change for you or you like the look of copperware then go for it. Otherwise it's not a great investment.

>>9002060
only 11 left

>>9003431
link
https://www.massdrop.com/buy/mauviel-150c2-saucepan-with-lid

>>9002340
>a $200 pan is not that much better than a $40 pan
sure, assuming a $10000 stove, for some cooking tasks

the world does not revolve around your particular set of circumstances

>>9003498
>the world does not revolve around your particular set of circumstances
bullshit

There is literally nothing better for the home cook in thick aluminium with a good non stick lining

>>9003765
While I agree a nonstick pan is very useful, it's also useLESS for many common things I cook at home.

You can't sear worth a fuck in it. It can't go under the broiler. It is useless for stir-fries. It's equally useless if you want to make a fond so you can deglaze and make a pan sauce.

>>9003776
This, anyone who thinks any particular pan type is the ONLY thing you should be using is retarded.

Cast Iron, nonstick stainless, copper. All can have their place in the same kitchen.

>>9003776
You sound like you actually know something about cooking. You do not belong on /ck/

>>9002064
Silver is objectively better than copper.

Get buying, unless you're poor. Only a couple thousand a pan.

>>9001875
My bad guys I forgot to get it. Go try your luck at a rural king.

>>9003874
>Only a couple thousand a pan.
Seems like a waste, you can get copper lined with pure silver for ~$800 for an 8.25" skillet.

$1,200 for a 12.5" sautee pan.

>>9003887
A lining isn't as conductive as a fully silver pan. Only the best.

>>9003890
True, but copper is within a hairsbreadth from silver in terms of conducting heat. Especially when compared to aluminum or stainless steel.

I'd take a full 8 or 10 piece set of copper + silver lining for $5-8k over 3 or 4 pieces of pure silver for the same cost.

>>9003776
>useless if you want to make a fond
you mean secs and yes you can. Look at the sear on this.
But of course it's raymond blanc and knows how to cook.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGUwDi3k-hY

>>9003903
Yeah but he's using professional nonstick. The shit that will still run you $100+ for a 12" skillet.

https://www.amazon.com/All-Clad-7112NSR2-Professional-Stainless-Nonstick/dp/B00005AL48

He's not using some $20-30 piece of shit nonstick like most people on /ck/ have.

>>9003912
The pans look nothing like all-clad. Why did you post a link to all-clad?

>>9003903

Where do you see a fond in that video?

>>9003919
That's simply an example of they type of pan he would be using.

This is an example of they type of nonstick 90% of people on here have when they talk about their nonstick pan

https://www.amazon.com/T-fal-Professional-Nonstick-Thermo-Spot-Indicator/dp/B000GWG0T2

>>9003776
>you can't sear on nonstick
sure you can
it's not ideal but if you think it's hard let alone impossible you are probably not a very experienced cook

>>8997201
A-are you a reloader?

Rate how clean your reloading bench versus your countertop

>>9003926
the jus. Water comes in clear. Has the color of gravy when it comes out. he said he deglazed the pan he even says "lifts the sucs" Unless you don't think Raymond Blanc knows what he is doing....

And once again. In french it's sucs not fond. Fond is what is made from sucs. Only dumb Americans calls sucs "fond".

>>9003912
>>9003935
Yuuup, he very obviously is not using some piece of shit nonstick you got at the grocery store for $20.

>>9003950
There's nothing special about that pan. He doesn't even use high heat. He's cooking in butter.

>>9003963
Shut the fuck up moron faggot.

He's using multilayer copper or aluminum core stainless outside with a nonstick lining.

That's a FAR cry from a $20 T-FAL or similar nonstick.

The multilayer sandwich will heat MUCH more evenly and not leave you with hot/cold spots in your pan whereas the cheaper one will, unless you're using a very nice oven that can make up for the shitty pan's heat distribution.
I own a $150 nonstick 5 layer from Viking, shit is hands down easier to brown things in than my T-FAL.


I assume you've either never used an expensive nonstick, or you simply watched youtube cooking videos and inferred more than was actually said.

>>9003973
>He's using multilayer copper or aluminum core stainless outside with a nonstick lining.
No he isn't faglord!

Learn to cook. That wouldn't do anything since he isn't constantly adjusting heat. HE IS COOKING IN FUCKING BUTTER!

>>9003994
HE STILL HAS TO HEAT UP THE FUCKING PAN


I can promise you with 100% certainty, his pans were $100+ each in that video.

>>9003998
>I can promise you with 100% certainty,
Oh well since you promised....Fucking idiot.

Heat up the pan hot so it can burn the butter, genius fucking retard. learn to cook. Understand the difference between whole butter and clarified butter. Understand the difference between butter having milk solids and not. That will make you a better cook than worrying about pan material.

Read more, post less.

>>9004001
I'm enjoying the fact you wont deny that what I'm saying is the truth.

He was not using the same shitty nonstick pan you're using, and you pretending you can cook just like him because he was using nonstick too!!! is just laughable, I am literally laughing at you out loud. Thank you.

>>9004008
>you need 5 ply to melt butter

LMAO. The state of /ck/ ladies and gents.

>>9004015
Who the fuck is saying you NEED it?

Fucking no one, what you do NEED it for, is good even heat distribution in a nonstick pan for searing meat well.

Also look at this shit, bronze fucking rivets in the pan, this shit ain't no $20 nonstick pan.

>>9004018
>even heat distribution in a nonstick pan for searing meat well.

which comes from the qualities of thicc aluminium
You can melt butter in a non-stick aliuminium pan.

You don't need fucking 5 ply, you dolt.

>>9004022
I'm not saying you NEED 5 ply, i'm simply saying it ISN'T some piece of shit nonstick.

I simply was saying it's far from the bottom of the barrel pan 90% of people are using.
Here is my first post
>>9003950
>Yuuup, he very obviously is not using some piece of shit nonstick you got at the grocery store for $20.

BAM, fact. He isn't using a piece of shit. I never said it was 5-ply, I never said it was 3-ply, I never said shit besides it was a better quality nonstick than most people have. I dont give a fuck if it's pure silver with a nonstick lining.

The only time I mentioned 5 layer was when i mentioned my own personal Viking, I never said that's what he had or what was REQUIRED.

Just fucking kys.

>>9004032
>aluminium pans can't melt butter

If you had two brain cells to stick together you'd realize this thread is about pan materials. Whether it is a 5ply pan or thicc aluminium you'd at least know both can MELT FUCKING BUTTER. Again, learn what fucking milk solids are before posting. If you can't sear a steak and develop sucs in a non-stick pan then you suck ass at cooking and shouldn't post.

>>9004036
I never said it CAN'T be done, but the video you posted WASN'T an example of that if that's what you're claiming.

Can it be done in a cheap non stick? Sure probably requiring a decent gas hob or you to pay the fuck attention to your pans temp before putting your meat in. So either you have a really good range or you pay the fuck attention.

The video posted however does not display this.

>>9004041
Jesus, are you fucking dense?
Nowhere was cost an issue until some retard brought it up. I can assure you, you can do the same thing in that fucking video with a $30 dollar vollrath aluminium non-stick without anymore fucking effort than he put in it. (once again he made fucking browned butter and laid a steak in the pan, not fucking hard) If you can't then hang up your fucking apron. None of you fucks even know what pan he IS fucking using. I'm seriously laughing at all the retards who can't saute a steak and blame it on nonstick. It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

>>9004053
>It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools
It's a poor craftsmen who uses the wrong tool for the job to be honest with you.

>>9004058
>wrong tool
The only tool here is you and you inability to cook. The claim that you can't sear a steak in non-stick is bogus. The claim that you can't develop sucs in a non-stick is bogus. These bogus claims are made by people who can't cook.

>>9004036
>If you can't sear a steak and develop sucs in a non-stick pan then you suck ass at cooking and shouldn't post.

While I agree that it's possible to create a fond in a nonstick pan, why would you choose to do that? Why would you pick a pan that's objectively worse for the job you want to do?

As an analogy: I can drive nails by hitting them with a wrench or a big pair of pliers...but why would I want to when a hammer works so much better?

>>9004058
This.

>>9004066
>Why would you pick a pan that's objectively worse for the job you want to do?

...again bogus claims made by people who can't cook.

>>9004053
>saute a steak
>saute
It was specifically saute we didn't want, bakka. Confirmed for knowing it all the internet but not actually cooking. Here's a hint: sauteing is not the same as browning.

>>9004060
>The claim that you can't sear a steak in non-stick is bogus. The claim that you can't develop sucs in a non-stick is bogus

Nobody said you couldn't do it. We're saying a nonstick pan is a poor choice of tool for that job.

>>9004073
Now you're just fucking memeing or are actually retarded.

Surely you don't HONESTLY believe a nonstick pan is the BEST tool for that job?

>>9004076

You're a fool, English as a second language? Pic related.

>>9004077
>I can't cook.

>>9004085
>>I can't cook.
Look faggot, no one is saying you can't do it, what i'm saying is you're god damn retarded if you think the best way to prepare a steak is in a nonstick pan.

>>9004101
>moves the goalpost because he can't cook.
Look you fucking idiot, the conversation went from:
>LOL! YOU CANT" cook stek in nonstick and make fund! LMAO.
debunked.

The goalpost got moved to.
> "You can, but it has to be 'spensive pans! LMAO! "
debunked
Now it's
>" you can in a cheap restaurant supply pan but it's not ideal. "

Fuck off. You shits can't cook, that's why you worry about pans.

>>9004106
>he thinks 4chan is one person

Here is your problem, I know for a fact you're arguing with at LEAST 2-3 people at this point.

>>9004060
I agree with you on the sucs part, but even though he says no gray, there's a pretty thick sear line there, which is unavoidable for lower surface temperature browning on steak. It creates a more gradual gradient than high temperature sear, perhaps preferable to some, but I clearly see quite a bit of gray colored beef, particularly on the first side. The second side line is not as apparent because the temperature in the pan has maxed out with the input.

>>9004112
>Here is your problem,
I have no problem. I can cook.

>>9004120
>I can cook.
You haven't proven as such, in fact with how much you're yapping on about nonstick I wouldn't be surprised if you're a garbage chef outside of your immediate comfort zone.

>>9003900
You could just buy a ten piece silver set, the only excuse not to is being poor

>>9004125
>You haven't proven as such,
Do you see me bitching about tools other than debunking retards who don't know how to use them? That should be proof enough.

>>9004113
Awww, poor Raymond Blanc. I bet he's going to take his Michelin Stars and go home now with that scathing review.

>>9004138
You've shown how much you'd love to S U C C Raymond Blanc's sucs, but you've yet to show any real proof that you're anything more than an argumentative autist who thinks he can cook like a pro because he's watched every cooking show worth watching on youtube.

>>9004144
>all that asshurt from a youtube video.
Damn dude, if you want to blame the pan for your inadequacies in cooking then don't let me stop you. No need to get that assmad.

>>9004160
pretty lame comeback after that one fampai

>>9004163
I'm here to debunk, not entertain anime faggots.

>>9004170
You haven't debunked anything, if anything you just made most people ignore you when you started saying there is nothing better to prepare a steak in than a nonstick pan.

I actually laughed when you brought up Raymond Blanc again as if that somehow validates your position.

>>9004204
>You haven't debunked anything,

not too bright are you? Clearly the video shows a seared steak with jus made from deglazing sucs. I debunked they initial claim

>You can't sear worth a fuck in it. It can't go under the broiler. It is useless for stir-fries. It's equally useless if you want to make a fond so you can deglaze and make a pan sauce. in >>9003776

good day.

>>9004216
Not my (you). So I don't give a fuck what someone else said.

Again, you seem to think 4chan is a single person, stop that, it makes you look VERY new.

>>9004229
Are you retarded? This is twice you've said that. why are you in the conversation? Do you have anything to offer than stupid retorts to non-issues? Stay on course otherwise you look like a faggot. You are obsessed with (yous) they need to remove that from the inline 4chan script.

>>9004236
The point is, when one person calls you out for something specific such as here. >>9004077

Where ALL that is said is that if you think a nonstick pan is the BEST pan for the job, you're retarded.

That person isn't taking up the mantel of ALL the other arguments in the thread directed towards you, they're making a SINGLE statement that should be taken as a SINGLE statement, instead you're lumping everyone in as if they all said the same thing the very first person you started arguing with said.

>>9004255
goddamn dude, how retarded are you? I ignored your question. yes I replied but I ignored your question. You have no point. Stop being obsessed with yous.

>>9004216
>jus made from deglazing sucs.

No, there was no deglazing. He added liquid to the pan while the meat was still in the pan. The sauce came from the meat, not from fond stuck to the pan.

pan shit flinging threads are the best thing on /ck/ since knife autism went out of style

>>9004275
>being this retarded

>>9004073
>in bogus claims made by people who can't cook.

That's not answering the question, anon.
Let's go over it again since apparently you were too stupid to get it the first time:

>While I agree that it's possible to create a fond in a nonstick pan, why would you choose to do that? Why would you pick a pan that's objectively worse for the job you want to do?

Care to answer the question this time? Or are you going to do some stupid deflecting bullshit again?

>>9004282
>Why would you pick a pan that's objectively worse for the job you want to do?

[citation needed]
Once again, if you cannot easily create sucs in a non-stick pan then you can't cook. I can do the same in stainless and in nonstick with the same amount of effort. Jesus, fucking christ, how many times do I have to spell this out to you?

>>9004297
>how many times do I have to spell this out to you?

Stop trying to "spell things out" that we already agree with.

Answer the fucking question.

>>9004302
>I can do the same in stainless and in nonstick with the same amount of effort.
>I can do the same in stainless and in nonstick with the same amount of effort.
>I can do the same in stainless and in nonstick with the same amount of effort.
>I can do the same in stainless and in nonstick with the same amount of effort.

>>8996243
>not cooking in a gold diamond pan.

>>9004307
>citation needed

>>9004307
I think you're full of crap.

It is much easier to develop fond/sucs in a "sticky" pan. Furthermore, you get more of it when done in a non-nonstick pan.

>>9004318
Yup, see that very easy demonstration from raymond blanc? Not sure if you caught it so let me reiterate.
>brown butter
>lay steak in
>flip steak
>add water
If you can't do that in a 30 dollar vollrath then you shouldn't post.

>>9004330
>If you can't do that in a 30 dollar vollrath then you shouldn't post.
are you actually retarded or just trolling for yous?

NO ONE FUCKING SAID IT CANT BE DONE.

What we're saying is you're using the wrong fucking tool, it can be done BETTER in other pans.

>>9004344
>it can be done BETTER in other pans.
I can do the same in stainless and in nonstick with the same amount of effort.

Learn to cook

>>9004352
you've neither proven nor demonstrated this and until you do

>citation needed

>>9004359
Ok, I won't have to. raymond blanc already has.
Read the thread.

I will now go on youtube and find pro chefs with nonstick pans and sucs. :)

>>9004366
yeah because we all know your skill is at LEAST on par with Raymond blanc.

>>9004375
LMAO at your life.
if you can't do what Raymond did to cook that steak (once again maman means "mom" in french ie it was his mom's recipe) then you shouldn't post.

>>9004382
You think his mom used a nonstick coated pan too?

were they invented then?

>>9004414
So your reasoning as to why a nonstick is best is because Raymond blanc uses one?
LOLOLOLOLOL

>>9004435
LMAO! how did you come to the conclusion?
Dude, seriously. Are you ok?

>>9004443
Then give a fucking reason, you've been dancing around it for almost 2 hours now, just give a straight fucking answer.

GIVEN THE OPTION what fucking pan would you use for the best steak?

>>9004464
Doesn't matter, I can cook.
I can do the same in stainless and in nonstick with the same amount of effort.

>>9004470
That's fucking bullshit and you're a shit chef if you can't notice the subtle differences, no one is asking if you can do it, we're talking about which is BEST for the job. And nonstick isn't it if you want to create sucs for a sauce.

>>9004488
>replying to the guy who corrected the thread about the difference between sucs and fond.

YOU DUNT KNOW WUT SUCS IS AND HOW TO MKE IT! LLMAO

fun kid. real fun.

I'm about to (finally) move out of my parents house in a month or so.

Tell me the Do's and Do Not's of buying cooking utensils. What should I be looking for when buying a pan?

>>9004499
Not him, but how about you cook one in a nonstick with timestamped pics as you go if you're so proud of how well it does faggot, or stfu?

>>9004501
You should buy restaurant supply vollrath nonstick fry pans 8" and 12" and get a small (2qt) and a large 3.5-4qt saucepan. Also a cheap stockpot 8qt. Pretty much all you need and it shouldn't be more than a hundo.

>>9004501
They should be induction capable. Don't buy expensive non-stick pans, they will inevitably wear out.. Buy a nice cast iron skillet, it will last the rest of your life. Buy the largest pan you can fit on your stovetop, typically a 12'' pan. Small pans are basically useless. Buy agood stainless for all the stuff your cast iron is not suited for (which is not very much, but still). Ask relatives/family for free old stuff first, they usually have a ton of it.

>>9004501
>What should I be looking for when buying a pan?

Thick and heavy. There should be no plastic or wood anywhere on the pan (that way it is oven-safe).

>>9004515
2nding restaurant supply store. The value for money is far superior to "consumer" cookware.

>>9004529
>Small pans are basically useless
is this a joke or are you just dumb?

Large pans take longer to heat, and on shittier ranges will have uneven heating. This is rectified if you have a nice gas range or a decent electric or induction cooktop, but we can't assume everyone does.

Not to mention a small pan can heat up much faster and would be far better for a single person cooking for themselves. An 8 or 9" pan should be fine for a single person. There is no need for a 12" unless you think you'll be cooking for others regularly.

>>9004515
>>9004529
>>9004534


Alright thanks.

How would one get access to "restaurant supply" items? Same place as ordinary pans?

>>9004548
If you have a GFS or sames near you then buy from them. Otherwise https://www.webstaurantstore.com/
also get 2 quarter sized sheet pans with racks. They are valuable. You can get half sized, but they piss me off as they don't fit in my sink nor dishwasher. Your mileage may vary.

>>9004545
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but I agree with him/her that small pans suck.

>>take longer to heat up
not on a larger burner they don't.

You can always cook a little food in a large pan, but you can't do the opposite. I also find that many foods--even things for one person--can have a hard time fitting in a small pan. A decent size fish fillet will not fit in an 8" pan. Neither will whole strips of bacon. Or tortillas if you're making a quesadilla. Etc. Even if the food does fit in the smaller pan it's more difficult to get a spatula under it when you need to flip food.

I own a variety of different size pans, yet I nearly always reach for the 12" even if I'm cooking just for myself.

>>9004555
>not on a larger burner they don't
Sweet, when can I come over to cook?

>>9004548
>How would one get access to "restaurant supply" items?

Go to a restaurant supply store--a shop that specializes in selling goods to restaurants.

>>8996307
>You can buy quality once, or you can buy cheap shit over and over again
this just isn't true
there's plenty of lower quality items that will also last a lifetime
>lower quality =/= will breakdown

>>9004571
>there's plenty of lower quality items that will also last a lifetime

I agree with you as far as general statements go. But for pots and pans my personal experience has been the exact opposite. I've had countless cheapo ones and they never last. There's always something: the coating fails, the thin metal warps, the layers of metal delaminate, the handle comes loose, etc.

Even among cookware which will always wear out eventually (nonstick, for example) the difference is massive. I used to buy T-fal nonstick pans; they'd last about a year before the coating started to fail. I switched to buying Eagleware/Alegacy from a restaurant supply store. I've got about 4.5 years on my 12" fry pan and it's still going strong--not to mention it heats much more evenly because it's so much thicker.

>>9004529
>should be induction capable
are you on crack?

Listen, we alllll know cast IRON is much better.

>>9004555
That's exactly why I recommended buying the larger pans, thanks.

>>9004660
Apparently you have never cooked on induction, Induction is the bulldog's bollocks. I especially like the fact that spilled food doesn't burn onto the cooking surface, especially potato/pasta water.

>>9004683
I'll agree that induction is easy to clean, but beyond that I'll take gas any day. For every other function gas is superior.

>>9004702
Eh, a modern induction (from 2014+) as long as it's not the cheapest shit, will be generally on par with most gas ranges. Maybe the highest end gas ranges are still better, but most people can't afford to drop $6k+ on an oven.

>>9004683
Who gives a shit when nobody uses it? That's like saying you should only buy a rice cooker if it has a GABA function

>>9004713
I agree that the modern induction ranges have (mostly) fixed the problem with inconsistent low simmers that the early models had. But otherwise, I still disagree that they can compete with gas. Most of the benefits of gas will never be addressed by induction due to its very nature:
-gas is more powerful
-gas works with any cookware material
-gas works with any shape cookware, like the round bottom of a wok
-gas provides a convenient source of ignition for flambeing and for stir-fry
-you can roast food directly over a gas flame
-you can easily visualize the heat output of a gas hob by looking at it
-no annoying automatic on-and-off if you move the cookware off the hob
-gas works even in the event of an electrical outage

Even an a cheapo gas range offers those advantages.

>>9004731
>gas is more powerful
Gas CAN be more powerful, this will depend what range you buy, and many cheaper ranges aren't that powerful, induction cooktops can get to 18,000 BTU+ equivalent.
I agree for the rest and that's why i personally have gas. But for an average person a decent induction is still going to be pretty good these days.

>>9004750

OK, I do admit there are exceptions. If you compare a high-end or commercial induction range with a low-end gas range then you could find a situation in which induction is more powerful. But in most cases (and certainly in an equal price comparison) gas is more powerful. 18k BTU is rather anemic as far as gas hobs go.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that gas is usually cheaper to operate as well. In the US going by national average prices gas costs about 1/3 that of electricity for the same amount of energy.

>>9004756
>national average prices gas costs about 1/3 that of electricity
Thanks fracking industry!

>>9004756
>18k BTU is rather anemic as far as gas hobs go.
Ehhhh?

What sort of range do you have?

$3000 LG range
BTU/h (LNG/LPG) -
-Left Rear 9,100 / 9,100 BTU
-Right Rear 5,000 / 5,000 BTU
-Left Front 12,000 / 10,000 BTU
-Right Front 18,500 / 12,500 BTU
-Center 10,000 BTU / 10,000 BTU (Single Oval)

$2100 Kenmore range
Burner Configuration:
1 - 9,500 BTU,
1 - 18,000 BTU,
1 - 14,200 BTU,
1 - 5,000 BTU,
1 - 10,000 BTU

$3300 GE
Burner - Left Front 17,000 BTU Power Boil
Burner - Left Rear 9,100 BTU
Burner - Right Front 20,000 BTU Tri-ring
Burner - Right Rear 5,000 BTU Precise Simmer
Burner - Center 8,000 BTU Oval


$8300 Capital Culinarian range
6x 25,000 BTU


So unless you're spending $5k+ on a range I don't think 18k BTU is going to seem anemic.

>>9004796
>What sort of range do you have?

Garland Sunfire. Cost me about $1400. Has 6x 30k hobs.

>>9004756
Yeah, but you're forgetting the large areas where there are no gas lines and people have to suck at the tit of the propane jew. They screw you hard. I'm in one of those areas and built my house all electric because I was warned. In the winter I spend @ $4000.00 less on utilities than the neighbors and we have moderate winters here. But it's my understanding that it's not safe to can with induction, so I have a standard electric range.

>>9004813
Lol well yeah if you're getting a fucking restaurant range with no normal consumer amenities, sure.

You're obviously not the average person though and you know it.

>>9004818
Lol, I actually have a propane tank outside. I've done the math, and while it's not quite 1/3 the cost of electric, it's about 1/2. Of course that might vary by area. Like I said originally, I was speaking in terms of averages.

>>4000.00 less on utilities than the neighbors
goddamn! I spend about $300 for a single propane fill that lasts me the entire year. Then again, I have very mild winters.

>>not safe to can with induction
That makes no sense. As long as it can keep the heat on the pressure canner it doesn't matter what form that heat takes. Though, all the large pressure canners I have seen (and own) are aluminum, and that wouldn't work at all on induction. I don't know if anyone makes an induction-capable pressure canner. I do have a pressure cooker which is induction rated but that's a standard pressure cooker, not a canner.

>>9004813
Have you had any issues with warranty or homeowners insurance with a pro range in your house? Does your homeowners insurance know?

>>9004859
here again
>>9004813
Also do you keep the pilots on all the time? Do they heat up the house?

>>9004859
I informed my insurance company about it and they told me it wasn't a problem assuming that I installed it according to the manufacturer's instructions. It requires more space between it and the wall or neighboring appliances, but that was it. I took photos of the installation with a ruler showing that I had more than the required gap.

I also have a small commercial deep fryer. Same situation with it. All the insurance wanted to know was that it had the proper spacing around it and that the electrical hookup was up to code. I did the electrical work myself then called an electrician to inspect it & give the OK.

>>9004870
I capped off the pilot and I use one of those long "grill lighters" to light the hobs.

At my old house the oven was gas and had a pilot light. It produces so little heat that you can't even tell it's on, really.

>>9004887
>use one of those long "grill lighters" to light the hobs
why would you want to do this every time you use the range?

What about ceramic?

I am a poor man and can only afford to wrap the food in alluminium foil and then putting it on the stove.

Asually works pretty well if its not meat. I've been forced to become vegan because of this. also got to watch out when making soup that the foil is not pierced. i have almost burnt down my shack because of this.

>>9004464
>what fucking pan would you use for the best steak?

a grill.

any steak cooked in a pan is a wasted steak

>>9004464
>muh steak
>muh hamboigahs
How much do you weigh?

>>9006797
bullshit, even Ramsay cooks his steaks in a pan.

>>9006692
look through some garbage if you can leave the house, I can't imagine it'd take more than a week to find some pots and pans

>>9004268
You sound like you have a lot of anger built up inside you. Let it out man

>>9006446
what about it?

>>9004829
>talking about propane usage and cost in south texas or florida as average

Yeah, kys. The unregulated propane jew screws my neighbors bad compared to my heat pump electric furnace. Everyone of them has looked at switching to electric but once the house is built switching is cost prohibitive. Also, what propane company put in your tank? You can't switch to another company without paying a removal fee of $800-$1200. So much for competition in an unregulated industry. Take heart though, you're a very good goy.

>>9008490
Indiana here. Propane is dirt cheap. LOL.

>>9008504
Looking it up, it's normally $1.75-$2.50 a gallon in Indiana.

BUT in 2014 it went up to over $4 a gallon, so if something like that were to happen longer term you probably wouldnt think it was so cheap.

>>9008517
>2014 it went up to over $4 a gallon,
It went up for 1 month because of a run from a very cold midwest winter. Happens about every 20 years, you just have to be smart and keep your tank topped up and don't do your winter fill up in February.

>>9008504
In the summer? Yeah. How about in December and January. LMAO. Keep sucking at the unregulated propane tit and good luck switching companies from the one that owns your tank without paying a shitload for tank removal.

>>9008534
>How about in December and January.
It's never high in December and january. Do you not know how to read a chart?

>having to "top up"
>getting "fill ups"
Is /ck/ just full of absolute hillbillies or what? Even in the smallest flyover towns I've lived in there was a city gas supply.

So back to the OP.

Mauviel, De Buyer, Bourgeat, or Falk?

As for handles Cast iron, stainless, or bronze?

>>9008543
Not a hillbilly but they cook great wild caught food. Better than any organically pain-free farmed bullshit some city slicker cooks up on their electric stove.

>>9008543
What the fuck is a city??

>>9008548
I've lived in NYC for 20 years and never seen a place that had electric.

>>9008555
Like 8k people, small enough that there was only one fire station.

>>9008517
They also short fill you, which when I was warned about that from other builders, convinced me to go all electric. Look at the gauge on the tank. It's like your dashboard gauge in your car. It's not like a gas pump gauge. You don't know how many gallons they put in. Even the plebes filling your house skim 50 gallons from a 500 gallon tank and you won't see it on the gauge. They sell or give the skim to their friends. Enjoy getting fucked or at least get used to it.

>>9008560
by place do you mean home residence?

Or like a restaurant?

Cause if home, i'd question where you've been the last 20 years. I have an apartment in NYC with a cheap electric range.

>>9008571
I mean apartments. Where are they putting in electric? Are you living in NYCHA or some such thing?

>>9008543
Not everywhere, even in cities, has natural gas lines running everywhere, especially in newer development areas.

>>8996243
Copper is
>as seen on TV

>>9008543
And what exists in the enormous areas surrounding your town or city? That's right, people living without natural gas lines and tied to the propane jew.

>>9008579
No, I live in a decent area of the city actually, just the owner of the building is a cheap fuck and has cheap ~$600 electric oven/ranges for the apartments.

Several of my friends in the city have similar setups.


Why do you seem to think gas is so common? O_o honestly confused by this as someone who's spent the past decade in NYC.

>>9008582
2.5mm copper pan:TV fake copper pan
Shirogami honyaki knife:TV ginsu knife

>>9008547
anyone

Looking for people with actual experience with these brands.

I'm thinking of getting a full set and would rather not buy a meme.

>>9008588
NYC is a big fucking place, he (like almost all other new yorkers) just pretends it's one big uniform "best city on earth"
If he lives in a section that hasn't seen heavy refurbishment or gentrification, everythings still probably running on natural gas since nobody's bothered to renovate and cheap out with electric ranges

>>9008599
copper is a meme, anon.

>>9008587
Nah, even in Jersey City there's gas
>>9008588
Honestly I don't know what to tell you. Maybe insurance companies are pushing landlords to swap out the good stuff for gas. My stove isn't even that nice, but at least it's gas. I'd rather move to the Deep South than cook on a coil stove.

>>9008610
>than cook on a coil stove.
you can always get induction if your budget allows and you don't have access to a gas line.

Good induction isn't that bad these days.

>>9008612
>induction
I don't have a microwave, and I don't consider induction 'cooking' either.

>>9008621
...are you retarded or just trolling for (you)s?

>>9008621
You know they make commercial induction cooktops these days that can rival gas right?

>>9008644
You mean it shoots fire out the top when you ask it to, works with normal copper pans and not some bizarro europhile "dumayer" special induction-compatible DRM pans, and the "induction" part is just some inert segment that doesn't actually get used, just to get the companies to piss off? Kind of like an eruv, but for scheming insurance adjusters instead of Y-weh?

Where do I get one of these wonderful devices?

>>9008663
Maybe just head back to /pol/, you'll find more like minded individuals to discuss your delusions with.

>>9008672
Nah I'm good here. I want to talk about food and cooking, not whine about how the white women in my area have all been taken by (insert minority group here)

>>8996394
I bought a full set of Marco Pierre White copper tri-ply pans for a steal by going to about 4 or 5 different overstock stores (marshalls, ross, tjmax)

>>9009229
That's not really in the same league as mauviel or similar high end copper.

Still you probably got a decent price because of discount stores.

>>9010659
It's important to remember that when poorfags say copper is a scam, they don't usually have any experience cooking with copper. Just copper-painted garbage.

>>9010713
Case in point
>>8996579
>>8996574

>>9009229
The copper on those pots is purely a cosmetic feature. It's an aluminium pot for all practical purposes. Still a very nice pot though.

Anyone here ever use an actual copper wok? Carbon steel is usually used but copper should have similar high heat abilities and even better thermal conductivity. Only downside I can see is the price compared to carbon steel. ($400-600 for copper vs $20-80 for steel)

>>9010754
>Only downside I can see is the price
No. Copper is too soft to form a wook from. Even the carbon steel ones dent and warp with heating. A copper wook of similar thickness will be softer cold than a carbon wook is red hot. Heat it a bit and it will be a flapjack on a stick.

>>9010716
Not even the actual copper painted garbage, but a knockoff of the copper painted garbage. We're arguing over whether a knockoff of a knockoff is a luxury hipster scam. Moments like these make me question why I still come here, year after year. Then I get my alt-account pre-emptively banned from /r/askculinary/ because I shitposted in /r/food/ once and their automated wrongthink bot flagged me, and I remember why. The bans are less cancerous :^)

>>9010759
Falk and amoretti brothers both make 2.3mm copper with stainless steel or tin lining.

For wok purposes I'd opt for stainless lining because the tin would need retinning often because of the high heat.


The copper itself should have no problems with the heat

>>9010778
Mauviel and Bourgeat both make copper woks as well. Not sure what that dude is smoking thinking copper isn't strong enough.

>>9010778
The stainless steel "lining" ones are the same as the "copper" ply pot higher up - in effect a cosmetic copper coating of no thermal value.
>The copper itself should have no problems with the heat
It doesn't melt, if that's what you're getting at. However, had you worked a bit with copper you'd know it is a very soft and plastic metal, whereas carbon steel is very stiff and springy. That property only gets more pronounced as it's heated.
Carbon steel is more than twice as elastic and stiff, as well as lighter. Your copper wook needs to be considerably thicker to even approach the rigidity, and it has to surpass it to account for its own weight.

>>9010810
No, Mauviel makes pic related. That's a stainless steel wook with a cosmetic copper coating. See >>9010824

>>9010828
>That's a stainless steel wook with a cosmetic copper coating
Lol what the fuck are you on?

0.2mm stainless lining with 2.3mm copper is 90% copper with a stainless lining.

That is NOT anywhere close to cosmetic copper, that's full function you dumb nigger.
>The bimetal of this 28cm wok consists of a heavy 2.3mm copper plate on which a 200 micron (0.2mm) fine layer of stainless steel is anchored.

>>9010824
You realize the forging temperature of copper is higher than aluminum right?

It's not as high as carbon steel, but it's over 1600F. I highly doubt you'll have any concern about it getting anywhere near forging composition.

>>9010828
>That's a stainless steel wook with a cosmetic copper coating
You can just go to their website yourself and see you're wrong.
Do you honestly think a $375 wok is primarily stainless steel? Further the specifications on the site tell you it's 90% copper 10% stainless.

I'm honestly not sure if you're just uninformed, or trying to troll the other poster, but either way you're wrong.

>>8996319
Are you some sort of creepy crypt keeper or something?