HOME > Chowhound > Cookware >

Discussion

"New Revereware"

If you are in the market for Revereware cookware because you remember how well it worked for your Mom, Aunt, Grandmother, my advice is that you look for used pieces (especially the copper-bottomed style) at garage or estate sales. Having recently purchased a new 12 inch pan made in China I found it to be of very poor quality in comparison to the Revereware I inherited from my Mother. The new cookware is thin, not made for any temps higher than low (it will pop and warp at medium heat) and not up to the standards of the antiques. And, if you go to the Revereware website, there's no way to ask a question, get customer service or get any information other than a sales pitch. While the new is shiny and bright, it's not even worth discount outlet prices. Beware of the new and search for the old cookware made in the U.S. decades ago.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. Today's new Revere Ware is only a "legacy brand name". Essentially the rights were purchased by a manufacturer located - I think - in Indonesia.

    They are not manufactured in the same fashion as your grandmothers pots and pans AT ALL.

    If you really want to add to your RW collection, swing through thrift shops and flea markets or hit eBay. Diligently doing so for a few months will get you a set to make you the envy of any 1950s homemaker. I paid, on average, less than $7 per pot w/lid. (Pick up lids seperately for $1 to marry to pots & pans you WILL find later!)

     
     
     
     
    13 Replies
    1. re: CaliforniaJoseph

      <They are not manufactured in the same fashion as your grandmothers pots and pans AT ALL. >

      I don't know about grandmother's reverse ware, but I know the reverse ware from 30 years ago were not that great anyway.

      Fond memories can cloud judgement. I also had some real fond memories of Marie Callender’s Frozen Food. I bought a year ago. They were ok, but they were far from anything great.

      1. re: Chemicalkinetics

        True, CK. My mother used Revereware exclusively and when I think of what she cooked, it didn't require much from the pans. She boiled potatoes, she boiled vegetables, she stewed chicken, corned beef and pot roast. She made spaghetti, chili and soup. She never thought to sear any proteins or cook eggs in them. (We had fry pans with Teflon for that and she didn't sear anything anyway.) Delicate sauces weren't in her world.

        She gave me a set of the same cookware when I got married. I cooked the same way.

        Until.... Julia, Jeff, Jacques, and others came into my life. PBS was my go-to for learning new things. I couldn't get enough, and those pans from my mom didn't cut it for a lot of things. She thought I was over-thinking the whole cooking thing - until she started to eat my food.

        She loved my cooking - although up until her passing, she still used her good old Revereware. That was name-brand quality to her and I never would think to change her mind.

        I STILL don't know how to make her chicken fricassee.

        1. re: Chemicalkinetics

          I've read your feelings on the matter CK and respect your opinions.

          Maybe grandmother's wasn't great... That being said "it's not the same" = (still) "it's not the same".

        2. re: CaliforniaJoseph

          I see you have both the pre and post-1968 Revere Ware. Many say that the post-1968 a very different. How do they compare in your experience?

          1. re: Angelus2013

            There is no comparison really. New shiny offshore made junk versus substantial even cooking quality made cookware. Lesson learned based on money ill spent on the new skillet that warped and scorched after/during first use at medium heat. I would (and have) gotten better results using heavy duty aluminium foil instead of the new garbage. Don't throw your money away.

            1. re: Jengland

              Oh, that I know on the out of country stuff, but how about the stuff from 1968-1999 when they were still made in America? We had two Revere Ware pieces from around the late 80s to early 90s and they work well but they're still thinner than the original pre68 pieces. It makes me think that the overseas stuff is now even thinner. Basically what I mean is, what's the difference between CaliforniaJoseph's Revere Ware from the 60s and the Revere Ware that he has that look like they're from the 70s to 90s? I can see the difference because the pre68 pieces have two screws on the handles and the stuff from the 70s and later have full plastic handles.

              1. re: Angelus2013

                The copper which had been around 0.5 mm and maybe more if the piece was bigger according to the patents, was cut in half

                1. re: wekick

                  Yes I know that, but I was asking if there's a difference in cooking between the pre1968, 1968-1999 and the Indonesian versions of the cookware. I've seen reviews and discussions where people act like everything made after 1968 was terrible. Yet multiple Amazon reviews have people stating that even the stuff from the 80s and early 90s are better than the current Asian made Revere Ware.

                  1. re: Angelus2013

                    All of the above could be true. The new ones are barely flashed with copper. No one has responded that can compare the pre and post 1960s reduction in copper but some have pans "from the 60s" that do not seem to perform well while as you can see from the video I posted, the earliest pans seem to have pretty even heat. I think as they got lighter in weight they got a little tippy too.

                    1. re: wekick

                      Ah yes, your sugar video. I thought it was pretty nice to watch. Think you can do other cooking videos with the pans?

                      As for their thickness, I don't think the copper is only 0.5mm thick even in the original pans. If the pictures of the Revere Ware blog is true, then that means in total the original pans were only about 1mm thick including the stainless steel and the post68 pans being 0.5mm thick in total. That seems rather thin even for the post68 pans. The 3/4 quart saucepan that my mother uses doesn't seem that thin. But then again it could be due to the size and thickness ratio.

                      1. re: Angelus2013

                        Pre-68 it was 2mm. Post 68 1mm. (US made, the Korean stuff rubs off)

                        1. re: CaliforniaJoseph

                          Thanks Jospeh. I figured that the original had to be at least 2mm thick.
                          Also thanks for your input on the omelette pans.

            2. re: Angelus2013

              The pre-68 stuff seems sturdier. The pans I use the most often, my two omelette pans, are post 68... And they produce lovely 2-egg omelettes.

          2. Hi, Jengland:

            Don't feel too bad. IMO, none of the Revereware was all that.

            Before anyone flames me, I inherited quite a lot of it (50s-vintage) from my mother, and I have fond memories of many fine meals cooked in it. It worked, and it was very durable. But none of it was particularly thick or heavy. I keep looking for the supposedly "better" Revereware (I've researched all the various marks), and after handling 100s of pans, I've yet to find a single one I'd want to own.

            I'm open to being shown otherwise, if someone has one of the elusive "better" RW pans.

            Aloha,
            Kaleo

            1 Reply
            1. re: kaleokahu

              I wouldn't bother trying - preferences are preferences.

            2. I have all kinds of cookware and have several pieces of the old Revereware I like to use. I have some sauce pans my favorite being a squat 2 qt that I use to make caramel. It cooks the sugar very evenly and even though I have copper pans, I like this for caramel. These pans will follow me to the grave because they are lighter weight than many pans I have. The handles almost seem to be designed to be used if you have any type of issues with your hands. They are easy to hold and the stock pot has the bail handle with the helper handle that allows the weight to be distributed to both hands and give more control to emptying the pan.
              http://tinyurl.com/odl6ht6
              The quality of Revere Ware has taken a turn for the worst. The amount of copper decreased by almost half as a cost cutting measure in the late 60s. Here are the things to look for if you want Revere Ware from the time when it was made with that full amount of copper. There might be a few variations here and there.

              It should be marked on the bottom-
              “made under process patent” or pat. pending.

              If it has handles, they should have two rivets
              http://tinyurl.com/plwcqu2
              You can buy replacement handles if they are too beat up but I just would just wait and buy one in good shape if I needed another piece of it.

              2 Replies
              1. re: wekick

                You must be a miracle chef. I had numerous old Revere pans years ago, but I always used a very thick West Bend pan a relative bought for me from a door-to-door salesman to cook any type of syrup or candies. Revereware was an "instant scorch" for me.

                1. re: Cam14

                  It would be hard to know what went wrong for you. You could have pans that are 50 years old and could be the ones with less copper so will not cook as evenly. It could be for some other reason.
                  This is a video I uploaded awhile ago of this pan with the caramelized sugar bubbling away. In this case the burner is wide and the flame touches the pan about 1/2 inch from the outside but the sugar bubbles all the way across and turns brown in a very even pattern. It is very similar to cooking in my Baumalu 2mm copper pans.
                  http://youtu.be/kggxDSALIV0
                  That is great that you have a pan that works well for you.

              2. Rivereware is very difficult to cook in. Even water burns in those pots:)

                1 Reply
                1. re: zackly

                  Cookware doesn't burn water, people burn water: you have mad skills!

                2. Sadly so many of the great names of American manufacture are now just brands owned by conglomerates who stamp those names on cheap wares. The original Revereware stuff was revolutionary for its day and and is also very durable and fairly ergonomic. It was not super high-end but works well enough for most basic tasks and lasted lifetimes. Wile not comparable to modern high-performance cookware like a set of All-Clad saucepans and Mauviel skillets I do believe that a basic set of Reverware (or similar Farberware) stock pots and sauce pans complimented by a good cast iron skillet could serve a family well for a lifetime and accomplish most recipes quite successfully. I am pretty sure my great aunt could have cooked an amazing family dinner with a sheet of aluminum and a paint bucket - skill is more important than the tools. I have a bunch of the old stuff and could not ask for more as far as stock and soup pots but I do tend to reach elsewhere when searing or making delicate sauces.

                  1. It seems like almost all of the famous old reliable American cookware and appliance brands have become Chinese crap. I did a recent kitchen refit (got rid of my prevous stuff to move overseas, now back in the U.S.) and bought mostly used on eBay. Very happy with what i ended up with. And saved a ton of money, too. My kitchen looks like 1980, but I don't mind. Most of what I bought, generally around 30 years old, is likely to outlive me.

                    One of the interesting things I discovered: A famous cookware and appliance brand still sells high-quality, made-in-France tri-ply pans in the U.S., but you may have to look hard for them. Their stuff is everywhere in the U.S., but it's mostly Chinese. The French stuff, naturally, costs more.

                    Apparently there is a belief in the industry that Americans care more about cheap prices than they do about quality. So this company sells Chinese to the Americans, and French to the rest of the world. That sales strategy probably isn't uncommon.

                    4 Replies
                    1. re: emu48

                      Hi emu48,

                      <A famous cookware and appliance brand still sells high-quality, made-in-France tri-ply pans in the U.S., but you may have to look hard for them. >

                      Would you be talking about Cuisinart French Classic? It's easy to find on Amazon. Also BB&B online, likely a few others.

                      http://www.amazon.com/Cuisinart-FCT-1...

                      Duffy

                      1. re: DuffyH

                        Not wanting to identify the brand. Lawyers are like roaches, everywhere and always hungry.

                      2. Let's not get too nostalgic about Reverware. This stuff belongs in a museum not in a modern kitchen.They were never very good to begin with. The amount of copper was more "for show than for go". I inherited a sauce pot from my mother's kitchen that was probably bought in the early 1960's.It was a poor conductor of heat and had to be monitored closely to avoid burning. Much better pots and pans from that era were the thick Club Aluminum pans that my mom also used. I guess Club was a brand of cast aluminum. Nowadays, besides aluminum you have multi clad cookware which offers the great conductivity of aluminum and/or copper and the non-reactive stainless steel interior. The best of both worlds..

                        12 Replies
                        1. re: zackly

                          That's no museum. I do have All-Clad and Club Aluminum. Most of my cooking isn't so delicate as to demand that much attention. I'd wager the same is true for 97% of America. These are fun, inexpensive, light serviceable pieces that are found easily for little to no cost. A great way for a newbie to cut teeth on SS cooking.

                           
                          1. re: CaliforniaJoseph

                            Couldn't disagree more! These are difficult to use especially for a newbie.

                            1. re: zackly

                              We will have to agree to disagree as much as we possibly can then.

                          2. re: zackly

                            Hi, zackly: "Let's not get too nostalgic about Reverware [sic] ...They were never very good to begin with."

                            Yes. I grew up cooking with my mom's 1950s RW, and the pans are so light there's ZERO chance any of them had 2mm of copper. In fact, I doubt any were 2mm thick TOTAL.

                            As Americana go, RW is OK, but that's about all.

                            Aloha,
                            Kaleo

                            1. re: kaleokahu

                              yeah, but they work well to perform most basic needs and while they do not compare to current high-end cookware or perhaps even the mid-range disk bottom stuff they are head and shoulders above some of the real junk at discount stores and would serve someone starting out on a budget better than something that will fall apart or flake away after any real use. The skillets I find a bit hard to work with but when it comes to boing water for pasta or simmering soup they do a perfectly good job. It seems the old-old stuff has a few microns more copper but I don't think it makes much of a difference.

                              1. re: JTPhilly

                                The copper is 0.5mm on the oldest pre mid 60s stuff and a little more on bigger pieces. This is according to the patents. The amount was cut in half after that and reduced to a flashing again after that.

                                1. re: wekick

                                  I have a bit of a hard time believing the 0.5mm copper, even with the patents. The Revere Ware History website shows a picture of the metal thickness. The steel and the copper pieces seem to be the same thickness. Which would mean that the pans are only 1mm thick on the base. It seems a little too thin even for fair functioning pans. When cut in half that would mean the steel parts would be 0.25mm with 0.25mm of copper with a total of 0.5mm in thickness for the base. I don't know if I own any steel utensils that are 0.25mm thick but it still seems rather thin. a pan with a 0.5mm base doesn't seem like it would belong on the stovetop.

                                  1. re: Angelus2013

                                    I think when they cut the copper, it did not necessarily mean they cut the stainless steel.

                                    1. re: wekick

                                      With the picture comparision, it sure looked like they cut both. http://i.imgur.com/OaauJ.jpg

                                      1. re: Angelus2013

                                        Hi, Angelus:

                                        A machinist's ruler or scale in the pic would help, no? All I know is I've never handled ANY Revereware that was at all weighty. Since there's no mistaking the heft of a 2mm copper bottom, I've concluded that the amount in even the early RW is scant. Still waiting for proof I'm wrong.

                                        Aloha,
                                        Kaleo

                                        1. re: kaleokahu

                                          It's not my picture since I found it on the wordpress website on Revere Ware history. I even asked the author of the website and have been given no response.

                                          But I know there's definitely no chance of 2mm worth of copper on the bottom. I don't know if you've see my reply further up or down as it were. But even then I wouldn't know if there would be a good comparision. Cookware that actually does use 2mm worth of copper only on the base probably uses much thicker stainless steel than Revere Ware does.

                              2. re: kaleokahu

                                Definitely there's zero chance of it containing 2mm of copper. They'd be much heavier, perform better and be much more costly. I think the 2mm thickness is only at the base of the cookware. Meaning 1mm of stainless steel body with 1 mm of copper on the bottom.

                                I think the only Revere Ware pans that can meet your minimum standards of cookware would be their Pro Line and their bottom clad tri ply line. The amount of aluminum they use seem to be at least 3mm thick or so.

                            2. Revereware was one of my earliest childhood memories. Despite a plethora of toys, mom would always find me pulling out the RW from the kitchen cabinet. Perhaps my screen name originates from that time.

                              I had several of those pieces ( mfd. in 1949 - the old stuff had the year of production stamped on the bottom) into adulthood along with a few pieces from the 70's and 80's. Quality seemed to go down steadily. The original bakelite handles became the shiny black plastic; the SS gauge certainly became thinner and the copper bottoms devolved into a skimpy veneer. Becoming enamored of the heavy Cuisinart, I dumped most of the RW at the local thrift shop (we're talking before Ebay) in 1997. Curiously, the old heavy pieces went overnight while the newer ones languished for weeks.

                              I now only have the RW 10Q stock pot and their commercial grade all-SS 10" skillet left to supplement my Cuisinart and cast iron. Mismatched, yes, but each does what it does best.
                              CP

                              1. I've found a few blogs where people posted pictures of them cooking with the older Revere Ware pans. They seem like workable pieces of cookware. The fish and the steak cooked in it seem surprisingly even.

                                http://happyfoodhappyfamily.blogspot....

                                http://memoriesfoodlove.wordpress.com...

                                7 Replies
                                1. re: Angelus2013

                                  I found them perfectly serviceable and fun to cook with when I was building a kitchen from scratch with a $5-10 a week thrift shop budget. For basic cooking on an electric coil burner, I found they worked alright. The sauce pans worked perfectly fine for steaming, the 8 quart pot set me back $4.88 and boiled pasta exactly as I needed, I sautéed mushrooms in my $3 fry pans with ease.

                                  I won't claim they are perfect, but if you had a college student with roommates in your life who needed some kitchen wares or found yourself starting over or in need of some cookware to date, not marry... I found these to be fun and easy pieces for basic cookery.

                                  1. re: CaliforniaJoseph

                                    Any chance of seeing your pictures of you cooking food in them?

                                    1. re: Angelus2013

                                      It's triple digit temps out here... The grill is getting all the love! But I did braise a beef shank just the other day in my brass handled RW pan...

                                       
                                      1. re: Angelus2013

                                        For lunch today. 2 eggs scrambled. Results comparable to what I get with my All-Clad French skillet on my sad coil burners. I think I paid $3 at a thrift shop - it was $3 well spent at the time.

                                         
                                        1. re: CaliforniaJoseph

                                          Nice. But for some reason the website isn't allowing me to enlarge the photos.

                                            1. re: breadchick

                                              I'm not sure why that happened... But if you squint your eyes you'll see eggs scrambled - to the best of my limited ability - identical to eggs scrambled - to the best of my limited ability - in a much, much pricier pan.