Good frying pan
- Thread starter AL. T
- Start date
Hi Al,
Check out this in depth discussion and you will have all the necessary information to make an informed decision.
That being said, I use cast iron skillets and also clad type cookware with an interior of stainless steel or clad with an interior AND exterior of stainless depending upon what I'm cooking. You should also handle the cookware to determine how comfortable it is for you.
Good luck with your choice.
Check out this in depth discussion and you will have all the necessary information to make an informed decision.
That being said, I use cast iron skillets and also clad type cookware with an interior of stainless steel or clad with an interior AND exterior of stainless depending upon what I'm cooking. You should also handle the cookware to determine how comfortable it is for you.
Good luck with your choice.
calphalon fan here to there warranty is top notch. We've had sevaral nonstick pans go bad over period of 6-8yrs and they've always replaced them with the current version . No questions asked. This warranty is on there higher end nonstick . Idont know about the cheaper stuff.
j biesinger
TVWBB Platinum Member
didn't think those work on all clad.
a pan depends on usage. If non-stick is the key then calphalon or analon (what I use) are nice. If high heat searing is important, then you probably need stainless clad aluminum. All clad is nice but for my BIG fry pan I went with a j. a. henckles international that has worked well and was about 1/2 as much as all clad, and has a much more comfortable handle.
j biesinger
TVWBB Platinum Member
I thought stainless was more for non-reactivity? similar to anodizing aluminum?
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
I think Target carries Calphalon's 'Kitchen Essential's line. It is their line they make for Target only, iirc. It is a bit lower end in terms of construction and has a 10- or 20-year warranty, depending on whether or not it's a 'Pro' piece, as opposed to the lifetime warranty of their higher end lines.
Chris S Lewis
TVWBB Fan
Cook's Illustrated did a review on 12" Skillets in this month's issue. They gave the All Clad Stainless Model 5112 their highest mark. At $135 it is a little pricy but also in all likly hood the last one you'll ever need to buy.
I was going to add it to my Christmas wish list and if Santa doesn't come through I'll pick one up for myself.
Be careful though because they also reviewed a 13" All Clad "French Slillet" which got the lowest marks.
This is, of course, if non-stick and non-reactive are important to your choice.
I was going to add it to my Christmas wish list and if Santa doesn't come through I'll pick one up for myself.
Be careful though because they also reviewed a 13" All Clad "French Slillet" which got the lowest marks.
This is, of course, if non-stick and non-reactive are important to your choice.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
Yet another CI test I can't buy into. I suppose if one sautés with utensils it is less of an issue, but I'm hard pressed to understand how CI's editors who, presumably, are somewhat beyond the 'home cook' level, can so easily ignore the horrible handles of All-Clad. One would expect at least a mention (I don't know about the current test results but their former results didn't mention them, iirc). Advanced and pro cooks scarcely use utensils--they flip the pan; that CI would pretend otherwise is a failure.
I've not used Calphalon's SS line but the pans from Viking and those of Sur la Table's proprietary line (doubtless, neither included in CI's test) have the same or better construction in terms of cladding--and far better handles. Personally, I prefer anodized aluminum which, also iirc, CI dismisses as 'difficult to control'--or some other similarly ridiculous statement. One wonders if their testers understand cooking science and fundamentals at all.
I've not used Calphalon's SS line but the pans from Viking and those of Sur la Table's proprietary line (doubtless, neither included in CI's test) have the same or better construction in terms of cladding--and far better handles. Personally, I prefer anodized aluminum which, also iirc, CI dismisses as 'difficult to control'--or some other similarly ridiculous statement. One wonders if their testers understand cooking science and fundamentals at all.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
Not surprising and very much in keeping with their often pretentious yet meritless 'philosophy'. Have none of them caramelized sugar before? They have inadequate lighting in their endlessly touted 'test kitchen'?
They so often seem to throw up contrived roadblocks that they devalue their results before they've even begun testing. My problem is that they're supposed to deliver the 'best'. To limit their testing to items that are 'widely available', as they so often claim is derelict, vis-à-vis how they position themselves. Availability is a keystroke away. Why are they not testing widely available (via the Net) lines that all but the newest cooks would likely have at least heard of, let alone wondered seriously about. They are in a unique postion to do just that, yet they fail time and again, as they do with their knife testing, pot testing, kitchen tool testing (less often), et al.
CI found themselves with a (figment of their editorial imagination, imo) problem many years ago. For some time CI was advancing their own and their reader's knowledge, turning new and beginning cooks into more comfortable novices. With the advent of the popularity of the cooking shows on TV, which largely became popular because of their accessible (read: vapid) approach to cooking, CI became more like the shows in response, turning off thousands of advance and pro cooks in the process. (The $ is in the new, newer and novice cooks.)
CI is still worth the read for newer or novice cooks, or for those who simply want to see what they're up to. They're better in baking and in some procedural and food science details, okay with some simpler approaches, uninspiring or downright limited in terms of creativity, flavor understanding, combination, or development.
My problem with CI is the same problem I have with the cooking shows, a preponderance of often over-simplified approaches to food and cuisine (so frequently rehashed) that are devoid of real knowledge, experience and understanding. But the big bucks are with beginning cooks and those who only cook vicariously. I have no issue with that, per se, but this approach 'dis-illuminates', if you will, the doors available to open for cooks who want to advance themselves. They are there but few can see them. I get emails all the time from cooks who want to move past being a novice and do not see how to do so. One thing I tell them: relegate CI to the monitoring pile and stop watching the cooking shows. [/rant]
They so often seem to throw up contrived roadblocks that they devalue their results before they've even begun testing. My problem is that they're supposed to deliver the 'best'. To limit their testing to items that are 'widely available', as they so often claim is derelict, vis-à-vis how they position themselves. Availability is a keystroke away. Why are they not testing widely available (via the Net) lines that all but the newest cooks would likely have at least heard of, let alone wondered seriously about. They are in a unique postion to do just that, yet they fail time and again, as they do with their knife testing, pot testing, kitchen tool testing (less often), et al.
CI found themselves with a (figment of their editorial imagination, imo) problem many years ago. For some time CI was advancing their own and their reader's knowledge, turning new and beginning cooks into more comfortable novices. With the advent of the popularity of the cooking shows on TV, which largely became popular because of their accessible (read: vapid) approach to cooking, CI became more like the shows in response, turning off thousands of advance and pro cooks in the process. (The $ is in the new, newer and novice cooks.)
CI is still worth the read for newer or novice cooks, or for those who simply want to see what they're up to. They're better in baking and in some procedural and food science details, okay with some simpler approaches, uninspiring or downright limited in terms of creativity, flavor understanding, combination, or development.
My problem with CI is the same problem I have with the cooking shows, a preponderance of often over-simplified approaches to food and cuisine (so frequently rehashed) that are devoid of real knowledge, experience and understanding. But the big bucks are with beginning cooks and those who only cook vicariously. I have no issue with that, per se, but this approach 'dis-illuminates', if you will, the doors available to open for cooks who want to advance themselves. They are there but few can see them. I get emails all the time from cooks who want to move past being a novice and do not see how to do so. One thing I tell them: relegate CI to the monitoring pile and stop watching the cooking shows. [/rant]
j biesinger
TVWBB Platinum Member
The handles and the price are exactly why I didn't buy a large all clad skillet.
I discovered a line of "all clad" pans by j a henckels international (their lesser brand) that are just as heavy in construction as all clad, have a much more ergonomic handle design, and so far, performs exceptionally well, oh and it's half the price of all clad.
since I got the pan I've yet to see them mentioned any where, or reviewed. they seem like great pans, I can't figure out why they're are so obscure.
I discovered a line of "all clad" pans by j a henckels international (their lesser brand) that are just as heavy in construction as all clad, have a much more ergonomic handle design, and so far, performs exceptionally well, oh and it's half the price of all clad.
since I got the pan I've yet to see them mentioned any where, or reviewed. they seem like great pans, I can't figure out why they're are so obscure.