Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dartvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!dartvax!betsy
From: betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry)
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: Calphalon vs. Cuisinart cookware?
Message-ID: <2645@dartvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Dec-84 16:54:18 EST
Article-I.D.: dartvax.2645
Posted: Tue Dec 18 16:54:18 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 04:44:34 EST
References: <1196@linus.UUCP>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 20

I would classify Calphalon cookware as a handy luxury, but hardly a necessity.
My husband and I are moderately serious cooks, and the two most-used pans in
our kitchen are a well-seasoned 12" cast-iron skillet and a two-quart Silverstone
(TM) saucepan.  We happen to own a Calphalon sauteuse of about the same
dimensions as the skillet; it is used only for those rare dishes which
the skillet would discolor and which need slow, very even heat (disqualifying the
Silverstone.)  The Calphalon surface is nowhere NEAR as non-stick as a well-
seasoned skillet;  in particular, it stuck badly when I tried to cook veal
cutlets in it.  It's easy to clean once things are burnt on, but that doesn't
salvage your stir-fry.
 
I'd say buy good heavy aluminum stock-pots, iron skillets, a nonstick-lined
saucepan or two, and save your cash
for an enamel-lined pot if you're cooking many foods which discolor.  
Calphalon's pretty, but I don't think it's worth the price differential.
-- 
Elizabeth Hanes Perry
UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!betsy  
CSNET: betsy@dartmouth
ARPA:  betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay