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