HOME > Chowhound > Cookware >

Discussion

Waterless Cookware Myths or Not

  • 102
  • Share

I would like to know if Waterless Cookware is a Myth or Not?

You see all kinds of Companies out there that states Waterless Cookware is the best way to go.

Yes I do like Top of the Line stiff, but don't like to pay over and above what stiff cost that includes Cookware.

I want to know what is the top brands and if Waterless Cookware is worth every penny you spend out on it?

Is there any place on the Internet that you can buy the Top of the Line in Waterless Cookware and if so what is the Web Site? I did find one and it is REAL COOKS.

Check them out and tell me what you think of there Waterless COOKWARE and there prices?

I am a big van for MADE IN THE USA.

If anyone has there brands please tell us about them.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
Posting Guidelines | FAQs | Feedback
Cancel
  1. "I would like to know if Waterless Cookware is a Myth or Not?"

    I say myth.

    "You see all kinds of Companies out there that states Waterless Cookware is the best way to go."

    All kinds of companies stated that? I don't think so.

    "I want to know what is the top brands and if Waterless Cookware is worth every penny you spend out on it?"

    I say not. Not every penny, not every dollar.

    7 Replies
    1. re: Chemicalkinetics

      Here is a set of Waterless Cookware that I would like your opinion on:

      WORLD'S FINEST STEAM CONTROL SYSTEM
      STEAM RELEASE VALVE KNOBS
      7-ply 304 SURGICAL STAINLESS STEEL
      WATERLESS COOKWARE WITH CARBON STEEL
      17 Pieces
      This 7-ply, surgical stainless steel waterless cookware set, which we call our "Ultra" set, is considered by many to be one of the highest quality waterless cookware sets on the market today. The manufacturer began manufacturing waterless cookware in 1950, and this was their very first set. History has proven this set to be a high quality, long lasting investment. The Ultra set is different from most waterless cookware sets in that it contains a layer of carbon steel between the layers of surgical stainless steel. Carbon steel is a heating element which carries the heat evenly to all parts of the cooking utensil and in the process prevents hot spots. This is important in waterless cooking, and allows food to cook naturally in their own juices within a complete circle of heat. The carbon steel was included in the construction of this set in order to make it possible to be used on an induction-top stove. The KT17ULTRA set is suitable for ceramic, induction-top, electric, and gas stoves. The handles are resistant to heat, cold and harsh detergents. This set weighs a total of 37 lbs. Lifetime Warranty.


      Item No. KT17ULTRA
      Regular Retail Price: $2195.00
      Wholesale Price: $329.99

      Now what do you think?

      An this one also:

      Maxam KT17 17-Piece 9-Element Surgical-Stainless-Steel Waterless Cookware Set

      Providing a wide range of essentials, this 17-piece cookware collection makes a nice choice for those setting up a first-time kitchen or for anyone looking to upgrade. The set includes a 1-2/3-quart covered saucepan, a 2-1/2-quart covered saucepan, a 3-1/5-quart covered saucepan, a 7-1/2-quart stove top roaster, an 11-3/8-inch skillet, a dome cover for the roaster and the skillet (can also be used directly on the stove-top as an extra skillet), and a flat cover for the roaster and the skillet, as well as a double boiler unit, five egg cups, and an egg utility rack. Use the saucepans when making homemade marinara sauce, cooking lentils, or heating up soup; the stovetop roaster works well for cooking large cuts of meat; and the skillet provides a wide flat base and tall sides--perfect for one-dish meals like chicken and rice. Melting chocolate's effortless with the double boiler in place (it can also be used directly on the stove-top as a 3-quart saucepan), and the egg cups allow for making poached eggs. The collection also provides a handy recipe book with step-by-step instructions.

      Best of all, the cookware can be used with the healthy "waterless" method of cooking. "Waterless" cooking allows for quickly cooking food on the stove-top at low temperatures and with only a very small amount of water--if any. It cooks in a way that retains almost all the vitamins and minerals (only 2-percent average mineral loss)--so veggies come out the same vibrant color as when they went in the pan. Even more, the high-quality cookware does not require additional grease or oil when cooking, which means low-fat meal options. Steam-cook food without the need for a steamer basket, bake a chocolate cake on the stove-top--between conventional cooking and the "waterless" method, the options are endless.

      To ensure fast, even heating with excellent heat retention and no hot spots, Maxam's "waterless" cookware features 304 surgical stainless-steel construction, inside and out, with an encapsulated thick aluminum disk in the base, which consists of nine elements: chrome, nickel, manganese, silicon, aluminum, iron, copper, molybedenum, and vanadium. The nine-element construction means that the cookware can be stacked, one on top of another, for space- and energy-saving convenience. Start by cooking on individual burners; when the steam-release valve in the lid whistles, simply stack the pans to finish cooking. For example, a hearty stew with carrots and potatoes can cook in the bottom pan, while broccoli cooks in a medium-size pan above that and another veggie cooks in a smaller-size pan on the very top. The self-sealing lids help lock in flavor and nutrients, and they can be inverted for nesting inside the proper pan before stacking or hanging the cookware when not in use. Even more, the thoughtfully designed cookware features nonslip phenolic handles that are welded to the outside (no rivets or screws inside the pan) and can withstand an oven's heat up to 350 degrees F (though the cookware is designed for stove-top use only--no need to turn on the oven when it's possible to bake on the stovetop). The handles are resistant to heat, cold, and detergents, and they offer a hanging hole at the end to help save on cupboard space. Safe to use on ceramic, electric, and gas stoves, the cookware carries a limited lifetime warranty and cleans up easily by hand with warm, soapy water (pots can go in the dishwasher, but the lids should be hand-washed due to the steam-release valves).

      What's in the Box
      1-2/3-quart, 2-1/2-quart, and 3-1/5-quart covered saucepans; 7-1/2-quart stove-top roaster; 11-3/8-inch skillet; dome cover for the roaster and skillet; flat cover for the roaster and skillet; double boiler; 5 egg cups; egg utility rack; recipe book with instructions.
      1-2/3-quart covered saucepan measures approximately 7-1/2 inches wide by 3-3/8 inches high
      2-1/2-quart covered saucepan measures approximately 8-5/8 inches wide by 3-3/4 inches high
      3-1/5-quart covered saucepan measures approximately 9-1/8 inches wide by 4-1/8 inches high
      7-1/2-quart stove-top roaster measures approximately 11-7/16 inches wide by 5-5/8 inches high
      11-3/8-inch skillet measures approximately 11-7/16 inches wide by 2-13/16 inches high
      Double boiler measures approximately 9-1/16 inches wide by 4 inches high
      Dome cover for roaster or skillet measures approximately 11 inches wide by 3-3/8 inches high
      Product Description
      This is the highest quality Steam Control Surgical Stainless Steel "Waterless" Cookware Set. Each piece is constructed of extra heavy surgical stainless steel and guaranteed to last a lifetime. Valves can screw on and off for easy cleaning.

      Please give me your thought on both of these sets.

      Thank-You

      1. re: nhoj28

        Hi, again, nhoj26:

        Here's what I think (in brackets)

        This 7-ply [layers 2,4,and 6 being useless, and good luck asking the mfgr. how thick 3 and 5 are], surgical [meaningless; why not "aerospace"?] stainless steel waterless [no, you need to put some in] cookware set, which we call our "Ultra" set [to justify charging $2,200], is considered by many [right, many in the company's marketing department] to be one of the highest quality waterless cookware sets on the market today [not saying a lot]. The manufacturer began manufacturing waterless cookware [and swindling folks ]in 1950, and this was their very first set. History [Really, how many total sets of waterless Ultra have been sold, relative to say, Revereware?] has proven this set to be a high quality, long lasting investment. [as if long-lasting is a sufficient cause for quality] The Ultra set is different from most waterless cookware sets in that it contains a layer of [ultra cheap] carbon steel between the layers of [ultra cheap] surgical [aerospace!] stainless steel. Carbon steel is a heating [not at all] element which carries the heat evenly [hahahaha!] to all parts of the cooking utensil and in the process prevents [a lie] hot spots. This is important in waterless cooking, and allows food to cook naturally in their own juices within a complete circle of heat [bizarrely idiotic]. The carbon steel was included in the construction of this set in order to make it possible to be used on an induction-top stove. [ah, there's the truth--forget even heat] The KT17ULTRA set is suitable [i.e., you won't starve--kinda like Visions] for ceramic, induction-top, electric, and gas stoves. The handles are resistant to heat, cold and harsh detergents [yessiree, surgical plastic]. This set weighs a total of 37 lbs. [37/17, including lids. Do the math--the stuff is not heavy] Lifetime Warranty [Sure, no problem when there's *at least* $1,800 PROFIT in the sale--see below].

        Item No. KT17ULTRA
        Regular Retail Price: $2195.00 [exists only to show what a bargain YOU got at the State Fair or because you're special]
        Wholesale Price: $329.99 [someone's *still* making a killing]

        The other ad is even more laughable, e.g., "an encapsulated thick aluminum disk in the base, which consists of nine elements: chrome, nickel, manganese, silicon, aluminum, iron, copper, molybedenum, and vanadium. The nine-element construction means that the cookware can be stacked, one on top of another, for space- and energy-saving convenience." This is pure gibberish and a complete non sequitur to boot--you need to have this fictional 9-element disk in order to stack the pans? Valves that screw off for easy cleaning? That's like touting a golf helmet's easy-to-clean chinstrap.

        Aloha,
        Kaleo

        1. re: kaleokahu

          That is a good point which get overlooked sometime. If they are making money at the $329.99 "wholesale price" (which they definitely do), then what the hell is up with the $2195 retail price? Do they really charge 20-30 folds of the manufacturing cost? Should one even consider buying products from such a company -- taking people as fools and treat them with no respect.

          Seriously, if we walked in a pizza shop, and the owner said to us that the pizzas are on sale at $10 for a 10" pizza, and they usually charge people for $100 for the same pizza. How would you feel about it? I would be absolutely turned off that they usually charge customers for $100 per pizza.

          1. re: Chemicalkinetics

            But Chemi, it sounds like such a deal! (BTW, I have a $100,000 Corolla in my driveway that I absolutely stole for 14 grand.)

            1. re: ladybugthepug

              :) What a great bargain you got there. ;)

        2. re: nhoj28

          "This 7-ply, surgical stainless steel waterless cookware set, which we call our "Ultra" set, is considered by many to be one of the highest quality waterless cookware sets on the market today."

          First, 7 ply of what? Low quality materials? Second considered one of the highest quality cookware by who? You said many, but who are these many people because I don't know any one thinks very highly about Waterless cookware, not CHOWHOUND people, not peole I know in person.

          "Carbon steel is a heating element which carries the heat evenly to all parts of the cooking utensil and in the process prevents hot spots"

          Carbon steel is not a very good thermal conductor, way worse than aluminum for example, so I have to disagree with your statement. If it is so awesome, why don't I just buy a carbon steel pan which is probably 1/5th of the price.

          "...healthy "waterless" method of cooking. "Waterless" cooking allows for quickly cooking food on the stove-top at low temperatures and with only a very small amount of water--if any"

          You know. Instead of keep calling this the "waterless" method, maybe you should call it for what it is: steaming. There is no such thing as "waterless" method. It is such a misleading marketing term. How would you feel if I call stir fry as "waterless vortex roasting"?

          "surgical stainless steel "

          Surgical stainless steels is such a stupid term.

          1. re: nhoj28

            That kind of pricing should indicate to anyone that it is likely NOT made in the USA..

        3. Cookware is what you make of it. I use both conventional and waterless. Both do what I need. I can spend $2500 at WS on a full set of All Clad d5 (m,ore with the copper core); I can spend the same amount on Salad Master, or 360 cookware, etc. All are stainless steel, some T304, others 18/10, etc. The big difference I see is the rim design. You can spend a couple of thousand on Mauviel. Is one better than the other? We have always purchased what we wanted, regardless of hype or what is now seen on tv reality cook shows.

          Different people have different likes. If you want all stainless, including the handles, and you want/just have to have waterless, look at the 360 line. Be prepared to pay a hefty price.

          We have 37 year old waterless that we still use. We have All Clad and Scanpan stainless as well as Cuisinart. We also have Swiss Diamond and Lodge cast iron We are happy with all of it.

          I don't know of any restaurants that use the stuff. In fact, on one of the shows, diners, drive ins and dives, you can see some pretty beat up aluminum stuff. I have only seen the shiny new cookware on the celebrity cook shows. And no, I have not seen any waterless used on any show, nor on any of the shopping channels.

          I expect a lot of folks to disagree with what I said but those are my feelings on the matter; Basically, you buy what makes you happy.

          1. When waterless cooking came about in the 1940s vegetables were traditionally cooked in quite a bit of water in American homes. Waterless cookware managed to create a vapor lock between the lid and pan and then released when it was done. Because the vitamins and minerals didn't end up in the water it was healthier.

            Since that time cooking methods have changed, some things cook well in lots of water, others require very little or no additional water.

            We have a set of Home Ec cookware from 1959, tri-ply stainless steel - copper - stainless steel, built like a tank and still in great shape. From what I can determine it was a division of Wear-ever Aluminum as was Cutco back then. The price was steep but very similar to what All-Clad sells for today. It is waterless cookware and when the vapor lock occurs you could (not should) lift the pan off the stove with the handle of the cover. It never gets used as waterless cookware because there is little control over the cooking. I prefer to see what is going on in the pan as I cook.

            What hasn't changed in over 60 years is the way waterless cookware is marketed and sold. They would like you to believe that everyone still cooks like WWII is still going on and that just isn't the case. Therefore there is no need to spend that amount of money to achieve the same results. They still manage to fool people just as silly knife infomercials do. If you understand that basically the food is being steamed then you realize that there are many ways to achieve this and you don't need a magical pan to do this.

            4 Replies
            1. re: SanityRemoved

              With all this said what brand of COOKWARE is Rated the very best by Consumers Report? This will tell the story about which one is.

              I am talking ether Waterless or Regular Cookware.

              Where else can one find the information we are looking for? There has to be some kind of report on where and what is the BEST COOKWARE.

              1. re: nhoj28

                There is no such thing as best best cookware. There is however clear distinction between good cookware from bad cookware, just like good cars from bad cars, but there isn't a BEST car per sa.

                1. re: Chemicalkinetics

                  Yes I will agree with that.

                  Like I said above I gave you my opinion on what the best is.

                  But you don't have to agree with it.

                  An in another way we know what most would buy brand wise and how much you would pay.

                  So yes there a a best brand of cookware just by the way it is made.

                  1. re: nhoj28

                    Although they would like you to believe otherwise, no company in existence today manufactures a perfect set of cookware. They generally specialize in one or two types of base metals and that doesn't work for perfect.

                    There are traits of various metals and cookware designs that benefit different types of cooking. It sounds nice that everything could look the same in style but that would not result in the best cookware.

            2. I'm assuming you have an induction cooktop? I mean seriously, that's what this stuff is. I'm actually a fan of induction, but there are many manufacturers of induction ready cookware. Have you ever used a pressure cooker? That's pretty much what we're talking about here. A powerful induction cooktop is going to boil water like nothing you've ever seen before. That is why you keep hearing them talk about the carbon steel. The truth is, a pan made of cast iron is capable of the same thing (with the exception of a pressure cooker). A lot of what they've included in their description is a waste of words.

              Do yourself a favor and find cookware you like, buy it by the piece (I have yet to see a set that fulfills all of my needs. You just end up with pieces you really want or use), and if you're using induction for heat - make sure it's induction ready.

              17 Replies
              1. re: ladybugthepug

                Now you are talking about what I have and I believe that it will be the future in the next few years.

                Uses less electricity.

                Now what type of cookware will be the best?

                I really don't believe you have to pay thousands of dollars for the cookware, you just have to find your source where to find the best cookware for everyday prices.

                1. re: nhoj28

                  "I really don't believe you have to pay thousands of dollars for the cookware, you just have to find your source where to find the best cookware for everyday prices."

                  Step number 1: look away from waterless cookware

                  Then you can move toward step number 2.

                  1. re: nhoj28

                    I don't know that you're going to see the majority of Americans switch to induction like the Europeans have, but this is due in large part because the US doesn't need to import natural gas from Eastern Europe. Natural gas is plentiful in the US and will be for the foreseeable future.

                    That being said there is nothing more efficient than induction heat. More manufacturers are making pots and pans induction ready. This is just my two cents, but restaurant supply stores have cooking equipment like Vollrath and Lacor that will perform just fine. I don't know where you live, but I would look at restaurant supply type stores for you pots, pans, etc. "Best" is a relative term, and until you actually hold the equipment in your hand, you aren't going to know what you like. I agree that spending big money on pots and pans is unnecessary unless you want something that looks good hanging in your kitchen.

                    As far as the whole "waterless" thing goes, it's just a confusing marketing ploy. How many "waterless" cooking recipes have you seen? Not many I imagine. Hell, a lot of people don't know how to even use a pressure cooker.

                    I can tell you that my next cooktop will be induction. Less energy required, heats faster, kitchen does not get hot due to wasted heat from gas or electric burners.

                    1. re: ladybugthepug

                      Less energy than what? How is your electricity generated? Nuke or NG power plant, what about how much you pay for electricity vs gas. From what i've read induction still uses a lot of electricity, as well as I havn't seen an induction oven so it will need to be the old style electric as well, there goes any saving in energy.

                      1. re: Dave5440

                        Hi, Dave5440:

                        Aha! I knew I could count on someone like you to reprise the inconvenient and unanswered doubts about induction efficiency. I've yet to see any empirical tests that even *attempt* to quantify energy savings of induction+ferritic over gas/resistive+conductive, let alone take into account how the electricity is generated in order to make "efficient" induction work. The induction hobs are typically higher power than their resistive brethren, so (a) who's surprised they're more powerful?; and (b) how much more juice is being used to shave 2 minutes off a boil time? The induction manufacturers REFUSE to quantify wattage output by dial indication, so color me cynical, but they're hiding something.

                        I am pretty sure no one here on CH has said their utility bill dropped as a result of switching to induction. It's been mostly about convenience (as always) and cool kitchens, with only feelgood, post hoc rationalizations about "efficiency".

                        Aloha,
                        Kaleo

                        1. re: kaleokahu

                          There's a simple fact of thermal law, in order to say boil water, there is a certain amount of btus required to raise the temp, that cannot change you can increase the thermal conductivity of the container to absorb more of the available energy or increase the energy or both, I think the induction manufacturers are doing both . I just got suspicious when I saw a commercial on TV touting "It boils water in 90 seconds" If you look closely at the pot for the nano second it shows it there's at most an inch of water in a giant pot.
                          Same deal goes for electric cars, sure it might get the pollution out of a metro area, but when you plug the stupid thing in, a coal fired plant somewhere is belching out CO2, SO2 and NO2 (mind you volcanos toss out more a year) to recharge it, so what's the advantage? now a giant battery needs to be recycled, more energy, more plastic in a landfill., It is all just feel good BS for the worst offenders so they can tell a darling story at their cocktail party with their WF "organic" apps. Rant over, but read my link, and follow all the links contained if you have the time
                          http://gawker.com/5824287/read-a-disg...

                          1. re: Dave5440

                            Dave,

                            "There's a simple fact of thermal law, in order to say boil water, there is a certain amount of btus required to raise the temp"

                            The amount of heat required to heat up a pot of water is the same no matter what cooking method you use. For example, 1 calorie of energy is required to heat up 1 gram of water by 1 Celsius degree. However, the efficiency of cooking method is different. An extreme example of baking a chicken in an oven with the door close and with the door open. The actual chicken still requires the same amount of energy to be absorbed to heat up, but in the case of the open door oven, a larger percentage of energy is heating the room instead of the chicken.

                            Induction is more efficiency at transferring that the electric energy from the stovetop to cookware at 90+% efficiency. Gas stoves only convert the 20-40% of the heat from the stove to the cookware. 60-80% is heating the kitchen.

                            Now, not all is lost for gas cooking, here is an example where people try to improve the stove to cookware efficiency by improving the cookware design. Nevertheless, it does illustrate the poor efficiency for vast majority of the gas powered stove at this moment.

                            http://appliancemagazine.com/content/...

                            The counterargument is that while induction cooking is more efficiency from the stove to cookware, electricity needs to be generated somewhere somehow, and a coal power plant or natural gas power plant is only 40% efficiency at converting those raw energy to electricity. So, there is a 60% energy lost at the power plants first, before we get to the 90% efficient (10% lost) in our home induction stove.

                            At the end, it more or less even out. However, the final argument for induction cooking is that it is easier to improve the power plant situation by making the power plants "green" or by making them more efficiency, but that is in the future. As of this very moment, no significant environmental advantages for majority of the households.

                            That is a bit similar to the electric car argument. The argument is that it is easier to improve the power plant efficiency than the individual cars. One can use solar plant power plant or nuclear power plant...etc. It is less realistic to produce solar power cars and impossible to have nuclear powered cars. :D

                            1. re: Chemicalkinetics

                              Chem -- don't forget to take into account the inefficiency of electrical transmission. The power plant might be 40% efficient, but transmission, as far as I've heard is an equivalent step down. So by the time the electricity arrives at your door, your getting 40% efficiency of fossil fuels, transmitted at 40% (I've heard figures as low as 10% for transmission, I'll do some research... it seems there are a lot of variables, time and most importantly disstance and voltage of transmission) efficiency, to be used at 90% efficiency.

                              Edit: hmmm... I'm seeing Wiki claiming losses of 6.5% per year. Maybe I reversed my numbers. Although, that section is talking about high power transmission.

                              1. re: mateo21

                                Mateo,

                                I didn't know the energy lost from electricity transmission is that low. If so, then the transmission lost is much greater than that of natural gas transmission. So the total energy efficiency could be higher for natural gas cooking if this is the case.

                                1. re: Chemicalkinetics

                                  Chem, in a somewhat disconcerting moment, I believe the statements of another without double checking! It looks like in the US, the transmission and distribution (T&D -- where transmission is moving electricity from generator to the distribution system, and the distribution system is what steps-down the voltage and dishes it out, so-to-speak) losses annually are between 6-8%.

                                  So, starting out with 100 Joules in, say, a lump of coal. 60 Joules makes to to the power grid. Assuming a 7% loss in T&D, we have about 56J left at the stove, with 90% efficiency, we're left with about 50J of energy -- giving us a nice, even, 50% overall efficiency.

                                  BTW, that appliance magazine study is pretty sweet! The gains showed by the star shaped burner was impressive... I wonder if that arrangement is naturally more efficient? or can take better advantage of the radiator like bottoms they installed.

                                  1. re: mateo21

                                    "So, starting out with 100 Joules in, say, a lump of coal. 60 Joules makes to to the power grid."

                                    I think we only get 40% out of a typical coal power plant. :)

                                    "Coal-fired power generation in Japan is operated with a total efficiency rate of 40% or more, the highest rate in the world. This is due to the recent widespread utilization of supercritical pressure and ultra-supercritical pressure power generation. "

                                    http://www.hitachi.com/environment/sh...

                              2. re: Chemicalkinetics

                                that cannot change you can increase the thermal conductivity of the container to absorb more of the available energy or increase the energy or both, I think the induction manufacturers are doing both

                                This is what I said, sounds like I agree with you, I'll add solar and wind power added to the grid also drives down power plant effciency.

                                1. re: Dave5440

                                  Hi, Dave5440: "...solar and wind power added to the grid also drives down power plant effciency."

                                  I can't get my brain around that one. Can you explain? To me it sounds like an idea from the good folks at "Clean Coal".

                                  Aloha,
                                  Kaleo

                                  1. re: kaleokahu

                                    A power plant runs the most effcient at 100 % so if you add wind and solar to it you have to lower the output of the generators lowering their effeciency, but if the wind drops or it gets cloudy the plant can't ramp up fast enough to react. What happens where I am, on a super windy day that's cool, 3/4 of the 150 windmills have their blades feathered so they don't spin, thus creating no power, why? because they can't use the power and can't slow the generating station down so they shut down what they can. The north american grid isn't (right now) designed for getting the most out of solar or wind and right now there's not enough money to change it.

                                    1. re: Dave5440

                                      Hi, Dave5440:

                                      Thanks for the explanation. Let me get this straight--on a sunny, windy day, the fossil plants MUST cut back output. Or what? It overloads the grid?

                                      If this is true, we damn well better be spending the money to smarten up the grid. It can't be sunny and windy everywhere.

                                      It also seems to me that it's a sorry state we're in if 3/'4 of wind-generated juice isn't getting used. Why throttle THAT source back to favor the fossil plants?

                                      Aloha,
                                      Kaleo

                                      1. re: kaleokahu

                                        It's because it takes so long to throttle back fossil fuel plants , and nukes way longer , and it was a sunny windy COOL day no need for a/c.So they shut down what they can and also when night rolls around both are )wind and solar) are doa, The EU is spending huge on solar(good move but they are broke too) but i'm not sure how their grid is layed out, i'm sure with the ex-commie borders everything was probably seperate which would make things easier

                      2. re: nhoj28

                        Here's Cooks Illustrated's 2005 List of Essential Cookware: http://www.cooksillustrated.com/image...

                        I agree with their choices for Dutch oven, 12" skillet, and saucepan.

                        I don't like my Lodge cast iron skillet. I never use it. It's new, presumably pre-seasoned. People tell you you should season it some more anyway. I've tried. It's useless AFAIC.

                        I think $125 for a nonstick skillet is silly. I have three cheap ones I paid a total of $25 for. I use one for eggs sometimes, the other two for nothing. I bought them to pan fry fish, but I do that as easily in SS. I've never been a fan of non-stick.

                        I have a Calphalon saute pan, and while I don't use it anymore because it's too big, I liked using it for years. I'd like a new copper saute pan if I buy something else.

                        I have a Le Creuset roaster, which probably isn't big enough for a big turkey. If I were to buy another, I might try the Calphalon. It wouldn't be All-Clad.

                        You can get things cheaper than what Amazon charges. Ask.

                        Hope this helps.

                    2. I was just at the Los Angeles County Fair and sat through the spiel for the waterless cookware. I really wanted to see this slicer they had. I couldn't believe that the cost for these pans started at 2100.00 and went up to 5600.00. They are there every year, and I had seen it years ago for 300.00 a set. The slicer I wanted was 400 dollars. I couldn't believe what a rip off this was.
                      No pots and pans are worth that much. I have my original set of Farberware I got when I got married and they work just fine. I have several pieces of Le Creuset which I like. I have large 14" pans that I bought at Costco.
                      I think it depends on how much you are going to cook and how much you can afford. The thing with sets too, is that you don't always use everything.

                      21 Replies
                      1. re: paprkutr

                        Hi, paprkutr (Nice handle, BTW):

                        "No pots and pans are worth that much [$2,100-$5,600]."

                        I might disagree in a theoretical/collector's/diminishing returns sort of way, but couldn't agree with you more that THESE pans (and all "waterless" I've seen) aren't worth squat.

                        Aloha,
                        Kaleo

                        1. re: kaleokahu

                          The difference between seeing it and using it are two different criteria. One would be based upon opinion, the other on sound fact.

                          1. re: dcrb

                            Hi, dcrb:

                            One needn't ride a lame horse to prove it.

                            But I'm glad it works for you. Do you think your waterless cookware allows you to maximize your cooking talent?

                            Aloha,
                            Kaleo

                            1. re: kaleokahu

                              The cookware certainly has not held me back or hurt it. Aside from the term "waterless" it remains a stainless steel cooking vessel, with a lid and a handle. Aside from the cost, which is high, the real difference is the rim design. I don't think there is that great a performance difference between 304, 18/8 and 18/10 steels since the core material is what transmits heat evenly. But as I stated earlier, some of the well known "professional" brands are just as expensive. And while I will agree that a quality instrument can greatly aid in meal preparation, it is the person, not the pot or pan that is in charge and either has talent or does not.

                              Regarding our use of the old Lustre Craft: Frozen veggies go into the pot, low, lid on and the moisture and ice crystals do the rest. We use butter and/oil as needed depending on what we are preparing. Soups and stews are cooked no different in the LC stock pot than in any other we own. The procedure is the same. And we use lids. On all our pots. I don't slap a steak in any hot pan and hold it upside down; nor do I make it a habit of boiling water and baking soda to aid in choosing what to use. And on the 360 cookware site is a video where cooking an 8 lb turkey on the stovetop is demonstrated. I would not do it because I like it oven roasted. But, you could do it in a large dutch oven on the stove top. That is not unique to "waterless", just a sales technique and an option to explore.

                              We also cook with AC (hate the handles), Lodge, Scan Pan Fusion 5, etc. Each works as intended, common sense applied. A person is most comfortable with what they like whether it is a spouse, and old pair of shoes, or cookware. Mahalo

                              1. re: dcrb

                                dcrb,

                                "the real difference is the rim design"

                                I would argue there is nothing too special about the rim design. It does not seal against steam pressure which is why it cannot be operated at high temperature when the steam will simply pop up the lid. I would say most other cookware can operate the same at these low heat settings.

                                "I don't think there is that great a performance difference between 304, 18/8 and 18/10 steels since the core material is what transmits heat evenly"

                                Agree. However, most other cladded cookware has better cladded schemes than the waterless cladding. Here is an example of the waterless cladded scheme:

                                http://www.bdmarketing.com/images/sta...

                                These 5 ply, 7 ply cladded Waterless cookware are no better than say the Calphalon triply or Tramontina triply construction where one solid thick aluminum in the middle. In addition, the Calphalon and Tramontina triply cookware are full cladded up to the edge. These Waterless ones are disc bottom.

                                http://www.cherylscozykitchen.net/ima...

                                This is not to say that disc bottom are worse performers. However, these prices are not cheap for disc bottom cladded cookware. For example, a 8-pieces full triply Tramontina cookware set is $149, whereas its 15 pieces bottom disc cladded cookware set is $84. (They have about the same amount of actual cookware, the 15 pieces set threw in some mixing bowels):

                                http://www.walmart.com/ip/Tramontina-...

                                "But as I stated earlier, some of the well known "professional" brands are just as expensive."

                                If we are talking about fully cladded cookware, then yes, we are talking about the price range of $300, like this Calphalon Triply Cookware set and Cuisianrt ProClad Cookware set:

                                http://www.amazon.com/Calphalon-Tri-P...

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

                                However, as mentioned before, these Waterless cookware are disk bottom cookware, so they are slightly expensive even at its promotion discount price, not to mentioned the so called regular retailed price.

                                1. re: dcrb

                                  E, dcrb Aloha Kaua:

                                  So, above you say you've used conventional *and* waterless (as if waterless is somehow different) cookware. Aside from the terminology and aside from the exorbitant cost, what does "waterless" do for you that a $60 piece similarly-constructed *waterful* clad won't? If the answer comes down to steaming, as I think it must, why a multi-piece $2,200 set and why not one $35 steamer insert/pentola?

                                  "I don't slap a steak in any hot pan and hold it upside down; nor do I make it a habit of boiling water and baking soda to aid in choosing what to use."

                                  I'm sorry, you lost me there. Can you explain?

                                  "...Frozen veggies go into the pot, low, lid on and the moisture and ice crystals do the rest."

                                  This is magic, justifying $2,200? Why would it be any different in a cheap pan with a normal rim and lid? Or a $50 microwave set to 01:23?

                                  And what *is* the core material in 360 and Lustre Craft? How thick is its core compared to,say, the highest-priced "conventional" disk clad like Demeyere Apollo or Atlantis? Not that I'm a huge fan of those lines, either, but it seems to me that the waterless manufacturers resort to hucksterism, snakeoil and hypochondria to peddle a $200 set for north of $2K. It's still a $200 set at the end of the day, even if Jamie Oliver can cook circles around me in it, right?

                                  A'ole Pilikia,
                                  Aloha,
                                  Kaleo

                                  1. re: kaleokahu

                                    "I don't slap a steak in any hot pan and hold it upside down; ... This is routinely done at the shows to show the folks that the meat is stuck to the pan, no oil. Later on it magically releases with no sticking and you cook the other side. This can be done in any non stick pan, not just waterless. Sales gimmick. The reference to the baking soda is that it 'proves" that conventional cookware is dirty. Another gimmick. Anyone who has seen the demonstrations at fairs and such will know what I am referring to.

                                    The rim of the pan is a recessed ledge, and the steam from the moisture in the food, or from the little water you may add condenses under the lid and is trapped between the lid and the rim, forming a seal of sorts. Not perfect, but a seal none the less. This is not magic, just physics. Is it steaming? Probably. No argument there. As I said, the big difference I see is in the rim.

                                    The core is an aluminum and aluminum alloy. All Clad d5 says the same about their pans. Five layers. Why? I don't know. Maybe they (and others) feel more is better. Demeyere is up to 7 layers on some models. Why? I don't know. Sales gimmick or an an actual benefit? Again, I don't know beyond that it is clad and a lot of folks won't use anything else. Maybe it makes them a better cook; maybe it gives them bragging rights. Our old LC has a carbon steel core. I guess it was state of the art in its day and has been surpassed by aluminum.

                                    Thickness? Disregarding those that have only a disc on the bottom, fully clad cookware to include the sides is somewhere between 2.5 and 3 mm thick, whether it is try-ply , 5, or 7 layers, etc. I suspect some of the layers are nothing more than part of the bonding process and are included to give the illusion that more is better.

                                    There is a manufacturer in Kansas, a couple in Wisconsin. Amercraft 360 is made in Wisconsin, but the offices are in Florida. I think Regalware bought Westbend and operates in Wisconsin as well and sells several lines, both multi-clad and waterless. All expensive. Like most, but not all items manufactured in the US, it will be more expensive than a product of similar design and material coming from the Orient. Made in America does not mean better. Neither does made in France, Belgium, Germany, etc. I don't know what it costs to manufacture, market, and sell a 1 qt saucepan of All Clad, Demeyere, 360, Tramontina, Calphalon, etc. I imagine there is quite a difference once you get past the actual cost of the material.

                                    SS cookware is durable and non-reactive to acidic foods. A true statement. But that is used as a sales ploy if a particular site links aluminum and non-stick to health problems or transferring flavors, or pitting, etc. Not all manufacturers resort to this type of tactic. But some do and it works. And to a degree, parts of the statement are true and other parts are not fully vetted by the medical or scientific community. I cannot disagree with the hucksterism comment. It is very irritating, and is based upon the premise that people are stupid, or gullible, uninformed, etc. And it doesn't justify the high cost. Yes, we can and do cook veggies in a standard pan, little to no water, and the results are the same, although I will say that evaporation appears quicker than in the waterless, BUT! I have never timed it. So they may be equal.

                                    I reckon that is all. I would not promote this stuff, nor would I condemn it. Years ago we bought into the ULTREX stuff from HSN and some is still useable. The rest has long since become unusable and has been discarded. Buyer beware.

                                    Thanks for you time, this has been enjoyable.

                                    1. re: dcrb

                                      "The rim of the pan is a recessed ledge, and the steam from the moisture in the food, or from the little water you may add condenses under the lid and is trapped between the lid and the rim, forming a seal of sorts"

                                      That is the part which I don't think matter even if it is true. First, the seal is so weak (if there is one) to go against the steam pressure. If one is to boil water, the water vapor will simply pop open the lid. If one has to limit the heating temperature to low as advertized by Waterless, then most cookware can do that kind of weak steaming in them. My Lodge Prologic has a very similar edge design for one, and condensed water droplet form all around the lid, but it is not called waterless cooking:

                                      http://www.castironcookware.com/prolo...

                                      "Our old LC has a carbon steel core. I guess it was state of the art in its day and has been surpassed by aluminum."

                                      LC just does not do aluminum. It is not their thing, just like Lodge does not do aluminum.

                                      "although I will say that evaporation appears quicker than in the waterless"

                                      Assuming the above statement has no typo, then that is bad. It means that Waterless cookware actually cannot trap water as well, and steam escapes faster, so the whole "special rim/lid" statement can go out of the window.

                                      Here is my take if you feel bad about buying non-American. Instead of spending $1000+ dollar to buy Waterless cookware, buy the $100 on Tramontina, and then donate the rest of the $900+ to your local charities or DonorChoice to projects you believe. DonorChoice is a really nice idea. Now, you can really direct your money to what you considered as the most needed. In my case, I rank the education system high, but you may find the homeless shelters or veterans to be more deserving. This, in my opinion, is better than supporting these badly designed cookware and on these dishonest sales and marketing people.

                                      1. re: Chemicalkinetics

                                        I probably stated the whole seal thing poorly. What I thought I said, or meant is that the "seal of sorts" appears to not cause evaporation as quickly as a straight sided style. Also I said that I have never timed it. The only site that I know of that has a video showing how this work is the 360 cookware site, even then, steam can be seen escaping. That is why I referred to it as a seal of sorts. And no, it is not perfect.

                                        I do like to buy American, when possible and when feasible. The Scanpan Fusion 5 is remarkably good. I was not aware when purchasing that it came from China. I have no regrets. China has good people and they manufacture good item. I just don't like their politics.

                                        The LC is very old (late' 60's) and I am not in the market to replace it with an updated version. I don't think LC is even manufactured anymore. I was referring to the core material used in between the stainless steel layers.

                                        I read your other piece above and stack cooking while theoretically possible just doesn't make practical sense. We have never tried it and never will. And from above, the whole term waterless is, I agree, misleading. And I am not defending it or the companies that promote it. In fact, while we use ours, they are not the first pans we go to, primarily because they don't heat as evenly. But they still serve a purpose and my wife is rather nostalgic about them.

                                        I have seen the Tramontina at the Tuesday Morning store, as well something marketed by a Dr. Weil. They look good and I am sure they do well on the cook top. Not having any experience with them, I cannot comment beyond what I have said. Would I recommend "waterless" to anyone? No. Nor would I recommend any other brand we may own. All I can do is relate first hand experience in the form of an opinion. Some good, some bad. I have enjoyed this exchange of info. I have indeed learned a lot. Many thanks.

                                        1. re: dcrb

                                          I also try to buy American when possible and feasible. For example, I prefer Dexter-Russell knives for that reason and Lodge cast iron cookware, but if the price difference or quality difference is too great, then I just switch. Thanks.

                                          I think the Waterless cookware set probably worth about $100-300 (to me is closer to $100-150). I just think it is kinda of nuts for them to list a $2000 price tag. As mentioned, it is like seeing a $100 price for a pizza or a $150 000 price tag for a Toyota Corolla.

                                          1. re: Chemicalkinetics

                                            I liked you analogy. It rings true. I went to the Tramontina site but it was under construction. Off to West 125. There I saw a 13 piece tii-ply set for $645. Then, to WS to look at the All Clad. The closest I could get were 15 piece sets. The try-ply had a retail of $1855, WS price of $999.96. Big difference in price and I doubt the other 2 pieces are worth in excess of $300 since it could be simply a pot and a lid. Is All Clad then worth the asking price compared to the Tramonitina, or for that matter Cuisinart multi-clad? I think not, but the stuff sells well. It gives folks bragging rights, and they can watch the cooking channel and say they use what so and so uses. I also looked at the d5 and WS stated it retails for $2175 and they are selling it for $1499. My personal like for high end would be the Mauviel Mcook, in stainless steel. Never used it but did look at the stuff closely at a Sur le Table store a year ago. But is too is expensive. We do have 2 of their roasters I got cheap thru eBay, and they are heavy. But for the pots and pans, zero experience and not likely to gain any in this lifetime. And for AC we do have (d5 6 qt fryer with basket), neither my wife nor I like that stick handle. It performs well. But that handle is just not comfortable. So I guess it comes down to folks buying what they like based upon budget and influenced by what the see and hear (fact and/or fiction).

                                            Again, thanks.

                                        2. re: Chemicalkinetics

                                          Just to be fair: While I have no personal experience using waterless cookware, disbelieve the claims that are made for it, and wouldn't spend a dime on it, I recently saw a vintage waterless saute pan (can't recall the brand) at a thrift shop and was surprised at its heavy weight, thick walls, smoothly polished interior, and apparently sturdy construction. It looked as if it would be fine for conventional cooking, though doubtless not at the level of All-Clad or Demeyere.

                                          1. re: Miss Priss

                                            Some are heavy and would do fine for conventional cooking. It is the cost and the sales technique that are off putting. Most everything said about what can be done with the cookware is possible and feasible. Most however, are not sufficient justification for the price. Since computer run machines handle most of the production, the cost should be lower. There are some hand finishing of the products, and this would apply to most types of cookware, so people must be paid a decent wage. The strategy behind the waterless is such that is commission based, and for everyone to make a lot of money, it must be priced high since volume is not in play. If it were, than it would be priced different, be found in department stores along side some other well known brands. Gimmickery and health claims aside, you can cook it quite satisfactorily. But is it actually worth the money? Only if you want it, need it, and can afford it. I apply that to other well known products as well. A higher price does not necessarily purchase quality. And sometimes, a bargain may be money wasted as well. This site is great for pros and cons and experiences.

                                            1. re: dcrb

                                              Well, yes. I think we all (except perhaps for the OP and that obvious shill whose post was quickly removed) agree that the stuff is grotesquely overpriced, regardless of whether or not it performs as advertised. I only hope that a few prospective waterless cookware customers, before plunking down their life savings and taking out a second mortgage to purchase a set of ordinary stainless steel pots and pans, will do a little research, find these comments, and change their minds.

                                              1. re: dcrb

                                                Hi, dcrb:

                                                We're more in agreement than not (and I totally respect your angle on this), but I still have to respond to your statement:

                                                "Most everything said about what can be done with the [waterless] cookware is possible and feasible."

                                                Not. At. All. The heavy and undeniable subtext in *everything* these manufacturers do is that cooking in their pans *as opposed to all others* is HEALTHIER. This is an outright lie.

                                                To add insult to injury, I am sure a large percentage of the buyers who plunk down 9x too much in this swindle have real and serious health concerns, e.g., high cholesterol, congestive heart failure, actual heart attack or stroke, etc. These scared, vulnerable folks aren't sold pans as much as a bill of goods that *preys* on their fears and insecurities. If there was oil in the pan it'd literally be snakeoil.

                                                Yes, waterless is just clad with a close(er) tolerance rim/lid. If the manufacturers admitted that, told the terrified wife of a heart attack victim that's all it is, they'd be out of business in a second. So instead they keep lying, touting this stuff as a cure for what ails folks. Shame on them all and anyone who apologizes for them.

                                                Aloha,
                                                Kaleo

                                                1. re: kaleokahu

                                                  I said possible and feasible as it relates to actual cooking. And I said most, which is different than stating simply 'everything'. As to the other claim regarding health, attainability is difficult to reach.

                                                  "I am sure a large percentage of the buyers who plunk down 9x too much in this swindle have real and serious health concerns, e.g., high cholesterol, congestive heart failure, actual heart attack or stroke, etc. These scared, vulnerable folks aren't sold pans as much as a bill of goods that *preys* on their fears and insecurities. " I think this is based more upon inner anger than substantiated fact. But you are honest and that is in and of itself a trait to be respected.

                                                  Take care.

                                                  1. re: dcrb

                                                    Here is a link I found on a site. I assume that prevention magazine is somewhat respectable. The food described can be cooked in any pan. Aside from that, the rest of the quote borrows heavily from the manufacturer. And if this represents the total review, it is not much. BUT, the implication is that it is( what you make of it) as in better, healthier, whatever.
                                                    http://www.360cookware.com/about-us/p...

                                                  2. re: kaleokahu

                                                    "Not. At. All. The heavy and undeniable subtext in *everything* these manufacturers do is that cooking in their pans *as opposed to all others* is HEALTHIER. This is an outright lie."

                                                    I agree. Originally in the 40s and 50s the healthier than other cookware had some substance to it. But it wasn't truly the cookware but the method in which people were cooking in other cookware i.e. lots of water. The healthier mantra stuck and because it was a major part of the sales pitch it was impossible in the marketing minds to change the claim although cooking methods and attitudes had changed.

                                                    dcrb unintentionally caused some confusion by using "LC" to mean Lustre Craft and for many on the board LC is used to abbreviate Le Creuset. I created a typo in my original reply when I stated we have waterless cookware of the brand name "HomeEc", the correct spelling is HomEc.

                                                    1. re: SanityRemoved

                                                      Sorry about the LC. And any confusion it caused.

                                                2. re: Miss Priss

                                                  Miss Priss,

                                                  Thanks.

                                        3. re: kaleokahu

                                          kaleokahu
                                          The whole thread just screams in my brain"Just what is wrong with water?" or why not use a steamer, or grill veggies(as distastefull as they are, a wrap of bacon can cure that) 2100$ for a #$%|ing pot or 3, nuts

                                  2. If you want to steam food why not just pop it in the microwave?

                                    7 Replies
                                    1. re: C. Hamster

                                      Maxam KT17 17-Piece 9-Element Surgical-Stainless-Steel Waterless Cookware Se $250.

                                      WORLD'S FINEST STEAM CONTROL SYSTEM WATERLESS COOKWARE WITH CARBON STEEL $329

                                      I posted these 2 Cookware Sets above and was hoping that more would ether say they had one of theses set . Would like to know what you thought are on the cookware and the price they have on them.

                                      It all sound good but are they built like the other ones that cost $1600 to $ 2200?

                                      I really don't think that the price is bad. I do know that they are made in China.

                                      1. re: nhoj28

                                        The manufacturers site should have all the glowing recommendations you are looking for. Personally I like the so called waterless cookware, as a cooking vessel and for some low moisture cooking solely based upon the rim design. The "retail" prices you cited earlier are just comparison prices for something similar made in the US. And they are overpriced. If it wasn't for direct marketing, the US made products could be sold for quite a bit less. I wouldn't accept a set as a gift, if that tells you anything.

                                        1. re: dcrb

                                          dcrb
                                          Which ones are you refereeing too: I wouldn't accept a set as a gift, if that tells you anything. Are you talking about the sets for $250.00 Maxam and Worlds Finest for $329.00?Or the ones that run $1600 to over $2000?

                                          1. re: nhoj28

                                            All of the above. You need to buy what you want, based upon your research, and what you have read within this discussion. If there is a satisfaction guarantee or money back, you have nothing to lose. It is just not something I would be interested in buying.
                                            And I thought the discussion on this had run its course and was done and over with. I know I am finished with it. Time to move on.
                                            Thanks.

                                        2. re: nhoj28

                                          I grew up on multi-ply waterless cookware and chose it for my first set when I set up my own household. I don't think my mother used the stack feature once. I know I never did. Most of the made-in-USA stuff is guaranteed for life. Except both my Mom's company, Low-Heet, and mine, Ecko-Flint, have disappeared. The Achilles heel of most waterless cookwear is its handles which are almost always some type of high performance plastic that must be attached with screws rather than riveted. The screws eventually get stripped and are of some proprietary design that can't be replaced at the hardware store. Mine finally got so loose that I was worried about having an accident with a full pot of something hot. Not wanting to invest so much money again, I replaced my waterless with one of the "new" (remember, I had spent my life cooking with 1940's technology so it was new to me) tri-ply stainless cookware lines with metal lids & riveted handles. What a revelation! No more hot spots and burned on food! No more scouring! Plus I could sear! I could even put the whole thing in a 500 degree oven! And did I mention that the lids form the same vapor-seal even without the famous stepped lip?

                                          1. re: Nutmegger1

                                            And we thank you for your apostasy.

                                            1. re: Nutmegger1

                                              I would try Fastenal for hard to find screws.

                                              I still haven't tried the stacking bit but should some time to see how it fares.

                                        3. 13pc Muller Cookware Set Regular price is $699.99

                                          http://the-ultimate-chef.3dcartstores...

                                          Dealfind

                                          $179 for a 13 Piece Stainless Steel Muller Cookware Set from The Ultimate Chef (Up to $699 Value

                                          )

                                          http://www.dealfind.com/vancouver/the...

                                          26 Replies
                                          1. re: Sleeperz

                                            Hi, Sleeperz:

                                            13 pieces, $179 new, "Europe's best quality cookware"?

                                            Right. If anyone is tempted, I've got a new, solar/wind clothes dryer, "Secret of the Ancients--Totally Free Drying For Life!" Regularly $999.99. Now only $199.95 while supplies last. Use coupon code CLOTHESLINE

                                            Aloha,
                                            Kaleo

                                            1. re: kaleokahu

                                              So what is the problem you see with this cookware? For the Regular price of $699.99 on sale for $179 it is no different pricewise than the cookware that goes on sale at Canadian Tire.
                                              The plus is it is better quality 18/10 304 Surgical Stainless Steel.

                                              They also went to a great deal of trouble to stamp the Full Mueller name and logo on the bottom of the all the pans instead of just a plain base or just the name brand on the bottom.

                                              German ?

                                              30 JANRE FUR EEG
                                              GAS - ELECTRIC - VITRO - INDUCTION
                                              MULLER S.G.
                                              CAPSULE INDUCTION BODEN
                                              18/10 EDELSTANL

                                              On the fry pan something, I never seen before it has small raised dimples with small tear drop depressions that are radiating out on the outer edge.

                                              1. re: Sleeperz

                                                Hi, Sleeperz:

                                                The problem I see with this cookware is that it's thin and cheap. There may well be *worse* European cookware, but calling it "Europe's best quality cookware" is not only outrageously false, it tells me they're playing consumers for chumps. As does the contention that their 18/10 stainless steel is any better than anyone else's. The "regular price" is just inflated to make people think they're getting a bargain.

                                                But how does it work for you?

                                                Aloha,
                                                Kaleo

                                                1. re: kaleokahu

                                                  The problem is you see it as thin, you never have touched one or measured the thickness. What material is it? It is 304 Surgical Stainless Steel which pot and pans made of this material are suppose to be thin, around 0.8 mm not paper thin. Otherwise they would weigh too much like cast iron pots and pans.

                                                  From the Mueller brochure I do not see them calling them Europe's best quality cookware but Europe's standard best cookware meaning it is among the best.
                                                  They only say that their 18/10 SS is the 304 surgical stainless steel which is why the pots and pans are shiny and bright and easy to clean and are better than plain 18/10 SS. This is fact not fiction that any pots and pans made of 304 are better.

                                                  The Regular price is not inflated and is infact less than the MSRP prices.
                                                  EURO - 1.495,00
                                                  USD - 1.795,00
                                                  GBP - 995,00
                                                  CHF - 2.360,00
                                                  These pots and pans were manufactured to be sold in Europe. I see no Made in China anywhere on the boxes, pans or brochures. Could be be the real deal. If this set was bought in Europe from a retailer. The retailer would have signed and dated the International Guarantee Certificate that this set is an original Mueller creation.
                                                  Each Mueller set carriers an individual record of both origin and authenticity.
                                                  (I guess you have to ask the retailer if you paid full MSRP)

                                                  If you even look closely you will see the 2 bend formed pouring lip that goes right around the top edge of each pot and pan. These pots and pans are heavy too.
                                                  The handles have extra details on the handles, which on a cheaper set they would not even bother.

                                                  In the short time I have used a few pieces, they are working for me. I bought them to use on Induction cookers. Cooking with minimum water works well and plan to use them to cook acidic stuff like recipes with tomatoes, etc.
                                                  I have no complaints other than most of the information seems to be in a European language and not enough info on how to use the thermostat.

                                                  1. re: Sleeperz

                                                    Sleeperz

                                                    We use a mixture of pots and pans in our home, to include some rather old Lustre Craft waterless. We like it, as we do all of our cookware. Some of the comments here can seem harsh and mean spirited; maybe they were meant to be. All I can say is to dismiss those comments from folks who have not used such cookware. Regarding the many layers on the bottom of some of this cookware, it is true that some are what holds the layers together. So welcome to the "chumps" group. Enjoy your cookware.

                                                    1. re: Sleeperz

                                                      There has been no country of origin labeling requirement in the EU since 1981, so the absence of a "Made in China" label is no indication that the product is European in origin. Moreover, 'surgical stainless steel' and '18/10' (meaning 18% chromium and 10% nickel) are marketing terms and are not used by metallurgists or steel mills. Chances are your cookware is neither of these. Almost all stainless steel cookware is made from 304 grade austenitic stainless on the inside because the nickel content makes it corrosion resistent. To qualify as 304 grade, the stainless steel must have a nickel content of not less than 8% and not more than 11%. Since nickel is expensive, there is little incentive for producers to boost the nickel content of 304 stainless above the minimum 8% required to qualify for the grade so, practically speaking, it is almost always 18/8 stainless. Nickel, however, is not magnetizable, so if your cookware is induction-compatible, the exterior can't be 18/10 and may not even be 304. As for 'surgical stainless,' most surgical implants such as suture wire, bone pins, skin closure staples etc. are made from grade 316 which has a minimum 10% nickel content (Saladmaster waterless cookware is the only cookware I know of made from 316, and you'll never find it at the price point you mentioned), so if anything were to be considered surgical stainless steel I suppose that would be it. Grade 403 stainless is another type of surgical stainless since surgical instruments like scapels are made from it. It contains no nickel and therefore is less corrosion-resistant (but it holds an edge well!)

                                                      1. re: Sleeperz

                                                        To each his/her own, Sleepers. To me, a pan--ANY pan that is 8/10 of a millimeter thick--is junk, even at $179/set. Nothing personal, it's just that we see the occasional *pusher* of "waterless" cookware, and the performance never even comes close to the claims, which themselves are absurd.

                                                        Glad it works for you.

                                                        Aloha,
                                                        Kaleo

                                                        1. re: kaleokahu

                                                          I have never seen any pan or pot that is made of any type of stainless steel that is 1 mm thick or more on the sides used for stove top cooking. If your talking about the base, it is about 10 mm thick.

                                                          1. re: Sleeperz

                                                            All right. Please run down all the layers and the thickness of each.

                                                            1. re: kaleokahu

                                                              Obviously it is the manufacturers priority information. This is all you get unless you buy your own set and take it apart and analyse the metals.

                                                              Saving on time and energy, it takes an amazing 1,200 tons of pressure to affix the 'Accuthermal' compact-base to the bottom of our thermo cookers. This compact base is the key to MULLER's unique energy-saving method. Made of several light metal alloys, it enhances heat conductivity so that heat is evenly distributed and stored during the cooking process.

                                                              1. re: Sleeperz

                                                                You see, it's this jargonized "Accuthermal" stuff that signals fraud like skywriting on a windless day. Many, many manufacturers use geometrically greater press pressures to bond and form their pans.

                                                                And how, perchance, does Mueller's method save energy? "[S]everal light alloys" translates to... aluminum. Welcome to the periodic table--HUNDREDS of makers use alloys of this element. Frankly, if Mueller just stuck with aluminum and made the set out of thick stock, it would be a better pan, energy-wise. But then there would be less opportunity to brag about the things they brag about.

                                                                I want you to remember this: Clad is made first for convenience, and second to hide what's inside. Does Mueller offer cutaways of its pans like *reputable* makers like Demeyere?

                                                                Aloha,
                                                                Kaleo

                                                                1. re: kaleokahu

                                                                  Mueller has a cutaway of the Accuthermal process in their brochure.

                                                                  What you call fraud is just marketing and is used by all manufactures in all industries. LIke Fords ecoboost, why doesn't Ford just call it turbocharging.
                                                                  Motherboard makers are famous for their jargon describing all aspects of their MBs. You should try and sell stuff and try not using jargon to make your product stand out from the rest. You would soon be bankrupt if you can not sell any.

                                                                  1. re: Sleeperz

                                                                    [Sigh] Yes, and if every other waterless cookware manufacturer's cutaway *drawing* is like this one, it is not to scale and bereft of dimensions. Bore us not if it is unscaled.

                                                                    Puffery is one thing. Snake Oil is another.

                                                                    This is Snake Oil. It takes work to sell Snake Oil. But it's still Snake Oil.

                                                                    Aloha,
                                                                    Kaleo

                                                                    1. re: kaleokahu

                                                                      OK, so are you saying CLAD cookware is better, like the Lagostina 3-Ply 13-Piece Clad Cookware Set $999.99 or the KitchenAid Clad Stainless Steel Cookset $799.99 or something different like the Lagostina Pro-forged 10-piece Set - $599.99.

                                                                      Delete

                                                                      Yep. That Ford Eco-boost is real puffery. Eco as in economy will only happen if you do not get on the boost. But they advertise what great amounts of power their ecoboost engines make. Whats up with that.!

                                                                      1. re: Sleeperz

                                                                        If your cookware is not clad (single ply with a disc-bottom which is what the picture looks like and which is the most likely construction at this price point) and is induction-compatible, then the body is probably 304 (read: 18/8) with a disc made of aluminum alloys under a nickel-less stainless bottom layer. The cookware will probably work fine in the short run. If you treat it well, it will last until the handles become loose, which they will with daily use since they are not riveted. Also, the bit about staying shiny because it is 'surgical' SS is baloney. The next time you are at a hospital look around you.

                                                                        1. re: Nutmegger1

                                                                          The handles on this set are welded to the sides of the pots and pans.
                                                                          The handles at the top screwed onto a stud welded to the lids.
                                                                          No fastener protrutions or rivets to collect food particles.

                                                                        2. re: Sleeperz

                                                                          No, I'm not saying all clad cookware is better--or worse than this stuff. Other than the puffery, we know next to nothing about what the layers in this base are and how thick they are.

                                                                          If you are rating this Mueller stuff or even Saladmaster at the top of the quality and performance heap, you're not living in the real world, and so no facts from this world will dissuade you.

                                                                          Aloha,
                                                                          Kaleo

                                                      2. re: Sleeperz

                                                        P.S. I found Muller's brochure online, and I quote:
                                                        "The Surgical Stainless Steel in the Muller cookware contains about 18% chromium and 10% nickel in addition to the iron." Note clever usage of the word 'about.' This is because, as I pointed out in an earlier post, 304 stainless is rarely more than 8% nickel.

                                                        1. re: Nutmegger1

                                                          But there is nothing wrong with having a 10% nickel content since the more nickel the better the corrosion resistance .
                                                          Type 304 surgical stainless steel is an austenitic steel containing 18-20% chromium, 8-10% nickel and MO. Could be called 18-10MO. That is why their 18/10 SS is Surgical Stainless Steel.

                                                          The molybdenum has a major effect on resisting acidic and chloride corrosion. Lots of foods are acidic -- tomato sauce is one that will pit plain 304/18-8. Just about everything you cook has salt in it, and salt (especially sea salt) has high chloride levels.

                                                          AISI Type 304 Stainless Steel - PLAIN 304 18-8 no MO.
                                                          Component Wt. %
                                                          C Max 0.08
                                                          Cr 18 - 20
                                                          Fe 66.345 - 74
                                                          Mn Max 2
                                                          Ni 8 - 10.5
                                                          P Max 0.045
                                                          S Max 0.03
                                                          Si Max 1

                                                          http://chemistry.about.com/cs/metalsa...

                                                          There can be small changes here and there and there is lots of grey areas unless you use the more detailed SAE or UNS grading systems.

                                                          1. re: Sleeperz

                                                            You are correct: there is nothing wrong with having 10% nickel. It not only improves corrosion resistance, it improves the sheen and color as well.
                                                            You are incorrect: 304 stainless steel is permitted to contain as little as 8% and as much as 11% nickel to qualify for the grade. Because nickel is more expensive than steel, most 304 contains 8%, hence the hedge "about 10%" in the marketing literature (see earlier post.)
                                                            You are incorrect: 304 stainless steel is not 'surgical.' 'Surgical' is not a technical term. 316 and 403 are the most common stainless steel grades used as surgical tools. You might find a bowl or tabletop made from 304 in an OR and call that surgical as well. In other words, the term is meaningless except as marketing hype.
                                                            You are correct: Molybdenum increases resistence to corrosion from acidic foods.
                                                            You are incorrect: There is no molybdenum in grade 304 stainless steel.

                                                            There are no gray areas. The UNS is for all metals and alloys while the SAE is specific to steel. In either, 304 stainless (SAE) or S30400 (UNS) have the same specifications.

                                                            Lastly, I read the website article you reference and it does not appear to be the source for most of your assertions. It is, however, a nice overview of the properties of stainless steel. Thanks.

                                                            1. re: Sleeperz

                                                              I found you on another website defending this stuff. I also found out how easy it is to become an affiliate and sell this cookware. Do you by any chance have a financial stake in this beyond that of an informed consumer?

                                                              1. re: Nutmegger1

                                                                I have no financial stake other than getting some dealfind credits and buying a good set of pots and pans. This set is just an interm set instead of getting a CLAD set.
                                                                A good set I have read is the Saladmaster 316. 316 being another grey area.
                                                                If I get enough credits I can hopefully get this set for free...:-) Especially since you Nay guys say it is so crappy. What other site am I on.? Dealfind?

                                                                The grey area is when 18-10 is used or 304 is used with a wide range in nickel content that can be used to qualifiy. That is why SAE or UNS is more detailed.
                                                                18-10MO has Moly in it plain 304 does not. New term now called 316. I put too much different information in my last post and you are confused by it and what is correct or incorrect.

                                                                The other site I referenced in it everyone is confused what is what is what 18-8 18-10 304, 316, old term new term etc, by the experts posting there. Maybe you want to give it a shot and put in your two cents.

                                                                http://www.finishing.com/292/94.shtml

                                                                1. re: Sleeperz

                                                                  If you need an interim value oriented set, Tramontina 18/10 TriPly-Clad Stainless Steel , Emeril Ware, and similar starter sets are a good place to start. Then you can piece meal your way into the premium "clad" cookware of your dreams.

                                                                  1. re: Sid Post

                                                                    <If you need an interim value oriented set, Tramontina 18/10 TriPly-Clad Stainless Steel , Emeril Ware>

                                                                    I agree with that. I think there are cladded cookware which cost less than Waterless.

                                                                  2. re: Sleeperz

                                                                    Your set is not "crappy." If you are not a professional cook, it will work just fine until the handles go. They are always the weakest link in this type of cookware. It will eventually lose its mirror-like shine if you use it frequently, especially if you put it in the dishwasher, but this will not hurt the performance. I can't speak for the little gizmo in the handle.

                                                                    What people are objecting to is the over-blown marketing claims of Muller:

                                                                    -"Europe's Best Quality Cookware" is a subjective claim that can't be substantiated. Along with the German-sounding trade-style, it conveys the idea that you are purchasing a product manufactured in the EU. It is only an impression, however, because the company never says explicity where it is made. It could be anywhere, but judging from the price, Indonesia or China is a good guess.

                                                                    -The deep discount, from $600 (even higher on some websites) all the way down to $179, is just an attention-grabber. This cookware can be found all over the internet for $179 because anyone with a website can become an "affiliate" and sell the stuff. The $600 "list" price is hucksterism.

                                                                    -I have already covered the stainless steel issues: according to their sales literature, it is "about" 10% nickel meaning it probably is the regulatory minimum of 8%, and the term 'surgical' has no legal or technical meaning.

                                                                    -The cookware has a disc bottom, but nowhere in the marketing materials does it say what this disc is composed of. We assume it is some layers of aluminum alloy with a final layer of some type of stainless (not 304) that can be magnitized for induction cooking because that is what is conventional, but who knows for sure?

                                                                    -The marketing literature says nothing about a guarantee. 25 years is standard, while premium cookware has a lifetime guarantee. The Muller product is sold by third party internet vendors, so where do you go if the little gizmo in the handle stops working, the handles become wobbly, or a piece develops rust?

                                                                    To sum up, you are getting basically 5 pots and a pan for an average of $30 each, not a steal for stainless cookware, but not outrageous if you are committed to the whole waterless thing. Many people, me included (see my earlier post) don't like the concept of waterless cookware, but that is not a Kochtophaus Muller cookware issue. If you love 'em and they are exactly the right sizes for what you need, then enjoy them. At this price point you have not made a lifetime investment anyway.

                                                                    P.S., Thank you for the link. Agree that it is a good resource for those who may be confused about stainless steel terminology.

                                                                2. re: Sleeperz

                                                                  T

                                                        2. Before you purchase any 'waterless' cookware, search on the name of the cookware on the internet. This is especially critical if you are impressed with what is being sold at Home and Garden Shows with a microphone attached to the saleman with the obnoxious voice as a bonus! Ditto if they come into your home to sell it!

                                                          11 Replies
                                                          1. re: thymetocook

                                                            Look at 360 cookware. No shows, no fairs, no home demos. Metal riveted handles, no plastic. Made in USA and about as expensive as some high end stainless from Demeyre, All Clad, etc. Worth it? In the eye of the beholder. Fancy claims? Yes.

                                                            1. re: dcrb

                                                              My local upscale-kitchenware store sells 360 cookware, and I happened to be there one day while they were demonstrating it. It appears to be well-made, if somewhat pricey, stainless-steel cookware with no superpowers.

                                                              1. re: Miss Priss

                                                                <stainless-steel cookware with no superpowers>

                                                                I doubt any cookware has superpowers. :)

                                                                I mean I don't think there are any cookware out there has really unexpected or transformational capability.

                                                                1. re: Chemicalkinetics

                                                                  Neither do I. Even my beloved pressure cookers are mere mortals (OK, mere utensils), though they do seem transformational at times.

                                                                  1. re: Miss Priss

                                                                    I give you that. In term of cookware, pressure cookers seem to have more powers. Not sure about super-powers.

                                                                  2. re: Chemicalkinetics

                                                                    Moving to the other end of the spectrum, I'd call my experience with sous vide as "really unexpected" and "transformational" -- e.g. cheap chuck transformed into succulent steak.

                                                                    (As far as "waterless cookware" is concerned, I must admit that I had never heard of it prior to this thread -- so thanks to Chemicalkinetics and others for educating me.)

                                                                    1. re: drongo

                                                                      <I'd call my experience with sous vide as "really unexpected" >

                                                                      I have never tried it, so I trust you.

                                                                      <I must admit that I had never heard of it >

                                                                      You are not missing much.

                                                                  3. re: Miss Priss

                                                                    Miss Priss,
                                                                    Vita Craft manufactures some cookware marketed Japan with built in RFIQ that automates cooking. I can't read Japanese but here is a wickipedia explanation. It is not super but is unique.

                                                                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rfiq

                                                                    1. re: dcrb

                                                                      It's certainly unique--and I hope it stays that way!

                                                                      1. re: dcrb

                                                                        RFIQ was developed by Thermal Solutions. There are some lawsuits that give us an inkling of what Vita Craft is all about.
                                                                        Examples:
                                                                        http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS...
                                                                        http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS...

                                                                        1. re: drongo

                                                                          drongo,

                                                                          Very interesting. Thanks.

                                                                2. I have had Aristocrat waterless cookware for 52 years. I have replaced nothing and it is still in wonderful shape. I have friends who have gone through 3 sets over the same time period. I paid $149 cdn for the set in 1962. A fortune back then but I have never regretted it.