HOME > Chowhound > Cookware >
What's your latest food project? Share your adventure
TELL US

Mauviel M'Cook SS worth it?

j
JrsyGal Dec 30, 2011 06:15 PM

Hello people-

I just ordered the Mauviel M'Cook SS 5 piece Item number 5210.05 from cutlery and more at a very very good price(at least that's what I think it seemed like). Do you think its worth it (or more) in its dough?
Here's the link: http://www.cutleryandmore.com/mauviel...

I almost bought the All-clad before this. bought this one as scouring the few sites I read seemed to suggest, this would be better than the All-clad's.

PS this is my 1st real dab into the SS cookware. I am currently using the Circulon Hard anodized non stick set. I was pretty happy with them, but wanted to- get into healthier cooking methods, and invest in long lasting cookware...long lasting as in life long-lasting :) This one is a 5 piece set, will probably add more later over the years. In the name of SS I have a Tramontina saucepan, every-thing...I mean EVRYTHING sticks. I usually just make tea, or make rice in it. I know, I will have to relearn my cooking techniques, but would it really be that bad?

  1. s
    southerndelight Dec 29, 2012 06:03 PM

    Just realized, I am a year late! I might need some reading glasses! How are you liking the Mauviel??

    Please give me your opinion after using it all year.
    Thanks

    1. s
      southerndelight Dec 29, 2012 06:00 PM

      Hi There,

      I joined chow hound just to reply to you question. I too am looking at new cookware. After using the old Calphalon, for the past 19 years, I am MORE than READY for a change!!! I acquired just about every piece they made in that type, maybe I have 44 pieces of it. Back when I was just getting started in the kitchen and a chef recommended it to me. Needless to say, I am searching for something a little more user friendly!

      I have been looking at the Mauviel M'Cook series for a while now and I am going between it and the New Williams Sonoma brand cookware.

      After reading the reviews on the WS brand, I think I am going to go for the Mauviel.
      I found the best price to be at Bed Bath and Beyond. The 5 pc is 399.99 and you can get a 20% discount !
      If I do this I am going for the 10ps set at 799.99 with a 20% discount it will be $640.00 plus tax. Wanted you to know that is the best price I have found.

      Does anyone have anything to add about the Williams Sonoma SS cookware??
      Thanks.

      Here is the link
      http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/searc...&

      1. c
        copperguy Nov 19, 2012 11:14 AM

        Stainless Steel is the way to go for long lasting cookware, I use Tin-lined at home, but they do not receive a large amount of use. At work, we use Mauviel SS and they seem to last really well, they still have the same even cooking surface. Under normal wear, the stainless steel should last you for life.

        1 Reply
        1. re: copperguy
          a
          AuntieMame58 Nov 19, 2012 11:57 AM

          It's important to note that stainless steel linings for copper cookware are the invention of convenience, not of performance. Copper is definitely better to cook with than All-Clad, so Mauviel of Falk do a very respectable job if cooking in the tin-lined pots. Unless you're cooking at temperatures above 425F, go with tin for your money and for best performance. The majority of French chefs and cooks use copper lined with tin. Re-tining is something they're only too happy to have to do after years of use, because the performance demands a repeat performance.

        2. k
          khuzdul Dec 31, 2011 12:38 AM

          I have a number of these pieces, but the 7 ply line and not the 5 ply and with iron handles. They are fine pots. I like them better than my All Clad pieces. They are heavier than All Clad, which may be a problem for some people. Worth it is pretty subjective. For most cooks and most cooking, All Clad, Tramontina, Cuisinart, Winco, Vollrath - they all can produce similar results for less money in the hands of a decent cook. That said, if I needed other pieces for high heat/metal utensils and they were in the price range I was willing to spend, I would consider getting more of them.

          If you use enough fats/oils at appropriate/med-high temperatures, you should not have sticking problems, though this means you probably won't be able to turn out golden/fluffy/soft/delicate omelets. Get a cheap non-stick fry pan for eggs if you like them that way.

          1. paulj Dec 30, 2011 09:53 PM

            But is the OP going to have problems with sticking? She isn't happy with the Tramontina SS, and currently using non-stick. Is all this talk about multiple layers ignoring the crucial usage issue?

            1 Reply
            1. re: paulj
              tanuki soup Dec 30, 2011 10:01 PM

              Good point. The OP would probably want to take a look at this recent thread:

              http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/825480

            2. Chemicalkinetics Dec 30, 2011 09:18 PM

              Good solid nice cookware. $300 for 3 pieces of cookware (with 2 lids). So it is a more expensive set than those from Calphalon, Cuisinart and Tramontina. However, the Mauviel M'Cook does look much more polished, so I see this as a good investment.

              1. k
                kaleokahu Dec 30, 2011 09:07 PM

                Hi JrsyGal:

                I have some Mauviel, but not this line. Mauviel is generally traditional and conservative, in the if-it-aint-broke-don't-fix-it sort of way. In shape, this line's models are all time-tested, and the rolled lip is a nice touch.

                I'm not usually a proponent of buying sets, but since you are already ordering the 3-pan mini set (5pcs), I would suggest that you go in for a pound and get the 5-pan (9-piece) set for $260 more. I suggest this for two reasons: (1) It is an even greater value, measured against list prices (42% vs. 39% savings); and more importantly (2) It gives you a second saucepan (and a better size spread to boot) and an extremely versatile "stockpot" (unfortunate descriptor in this case).

                Aren't I good at spending other people's money?

                Aloha,
                Kaleo

                1. dcrb Dec 30, 2011 08:06 PM

                  Looks like a nice set at a great price. We have the M'Cook roasters and love them. They too are very heavy. No experience with the pots and pans but have looked at them at the Sur La Table and they seem very substantial. Regarding the handles, I prefer the curve of the Mauviel over the stick of the All Clad. Enjoy.

                  1. tanuki soup Dec 30, 2011 07:09 PM

                    I really like my Mauviel M'Cook saucepans. They are thick and heavy, but also very responsive. They work great on induction cooktops. The non-drip pouring edges are a nice touch. The handles take some getting used to (thin and flat -- I prefer tubular handles), but All-Clad isn't known for having particularly comfortable handles either. The pans feel very solid, like you could pound in nails with them.

                    9 Replies
                    1. re: tanuki soup
                      j
                      JrsyGal Dec 30, 2011 07:37 PM

                      Woohoo....Thankyou so much Tanuki

                      Anyone else with any advice...pro/cons..??

                      BTW, I can still cancel my order and get something else till its shipped out. I know I know...just want to feel I did the right thing, is what I mean.

                      1. re: JrsyGal
                        j
                        JrsyGal Dec 30, 2011 07:40 PM

                        BTW, what do these #'s at the end of the cookware name mean? I mean the item name...mine's is 5210.05...I am sure, it signifies the quality and all, but does someone know what exactly?

                      2. re: tanuki soup
                        k
                        kaleokahu Dec 30, 2011 08:45 PM

                        Hi, tanuki, Happy New Year:

                        Do you know much about the layers' thicknesses? Are all pieces fully clad? I infer from the link that layers 2 and 4 are insubstantial bonding layers, and what we really have here is (perhaps excellent) SS-Al-SS tri-ply. Is this the case?

                        Remember, this is the line that replaced Induc'Inox (the ill-starred, but induction-cult-followed SS-carbon steel-SS triply). Any idea how it compares with Demeyer Apollo?

                        Aloha,
                        Kaleo

                        1. re: kaleokahu
                          tanuki soup Dec 30, 2011 09:12 PM

                          Hi, Kaleokahu,

                          Happy New Year to you too!

                          Everything I've read indicates that all of the Mauviel M'Cook pieces are fully clad. I'm not sure about the thickness of each layer, but I did find the following description on the web:

                          "1.6mm of aluminum plus 1mm of stainless steel for a total of 2.6mm thickness".

                          I don't have any Demeyere pieces, but they describe their 7-layer material as follows in their online PDF catalog. (BTW, as you probably recall from an earlier thread, their frying pans are fully clad and their saucepans and stockpots are disk bottom.):

                          7-Ply material is a unique technology consisting of 7 alloys including stainless steel and an aluminium core. The layers are formed over the bottom and the side of the products. This technology guarantees that the heat is spread evenly over the whole surface of the pan right up to the rim. The total thickness of the 7 layers is designed with the necessity in mind to obtain the right temperature for the typical cooking process for which the product is used.

                          Adjusted thickness:
                          - For woks: 2.3 mm/0.09”
                          - For conic sauté pans, simmering pans, grill pan, and
                          4-star frying pans (skillets): 3 to 3.3 mm/0.12” to 0.13”
                          - For the 5-star professional frying pans (skillets): 4.8 mm/0.19”

                          Hope you find this information interesting.

                          Tanuki Soup

                          1. re: tanuki soup
                            k
                            kaleokahu Dec 30, 2011 09:26 PM

                            Thanks, tanuki:

                            OK, so if it's .5/1.6/.5, the cladding on M'cook is *extremely* close to A-C, which is .46/?/.46. 1.6mm of aluminum core...hmmm, I would have expected more.

                            Re: Apollo, I've looked at the cutaways VERY closely, and only three of the claimed 7 layers are thick enough to be seen, but the aggregated core looks thicker than 1.6mm. Then again, Apollo is a more expensive than M'cook.

                            Yes, your information *was* interesting. Thank you.

                            Aloha,
                            Kaleo

                            1. re: kaleokahu
                              tanuki soup Dec 30, 2011 09:54 PM

                              Hi again, K:

                              After reading so many catalogs and websites, I've been wondering about the ideal thickness of real-world cookware.

                              Sure, thicker cookware always seems impressive, but there has to be a point where adding thickness doesn't just reach a point of diminishing returns, but is actually detrimental to cooking performance.

                              As an absurd example, I can't imagine that a frying pan with a 6-inch-thick base would work very well no matter what it was made of (steel, aluminum, or copper).

                              It seems to me that in multilayer cookware you want an internal layer of a good heat conductor that is thick enough to transfer the heat quickly out to the edges of the pan, but is also thin enough to minimize heat storage and thus improve responsiveness to changes in the cooktop's temperature setting.

                              Of course, weight and cost are also important considerations.

                              Just throwing out some random thoughts here.

                              Tanuki Soup

                              1. re: tanuki soup
                                k
                                kaleokahu Dec 30, 2011 10:41 PM

                                Hey, tanuki:

                                Yes, of course you are right about diminishing returns. I'd even say there are tipping points toward counterproductivity out there somewhere. But do we know where those points are?

                                I come at the thickness issue from the perspective that the makers use as little as they can get away with. I have yet to see any credible review or knowledgeable person fault a pan or line for having *too-thick* conductive layers; the best it gets is that they opine that thicker conductive layers are a waste of material (or energy if you subscribe to the "heating your kitchen" theory). If, as you gleaned, Demeyere is putting 4.8mm of effective thickness in their 5-star frypans, I think they must be doing that for culinary reasons

                                Clad is an odd animal IMO because it folds in another oft-ignored factor--the cladding itself can tend to first impede and then lock in the heat. So responsiveness suffers regardless. If you locked in an inch-thick slab of aluminum, it would be less responsive than the same inch of bare cast aluminum. Assuming you could calculate the *perfect* thickness of conductive metal for a straight-gauge pan, what are you going to do to it when you clad it? Will it be thinned to compensate for the weight or the bonding technology? And then what will you have? In the case of thick-steel-thin-aluminum clad, you have the worst effect given the rough equivalence (e.g., 1mm of SS:1.6mm of aluminum in M'cook, and that's GOOD clad).

                                Cost and weight are factors, sure. Much more so for copper. My friend alarash has two VERY cool Mauviel hammered aluminum pans on eBay right now that are 4.8mm thick. I'm not sure that they weigh a lot, or that the metal in each pan cost Mauviel a lot more than rendering them thinner. An unknown (to me anyway) factor is the technological/IP hurdles to cladding such truly thick layers. THAT may be the real reason why you don't see thicker clad.

                                Your random thoughts are always insightful and welcome. I learn something from you always.

                                Aloha,
                                Kaleo

                                1. re: kaleokahu
                                  tanuki soup Dec 31, 2011 12:17 AM

                                  Thanks for the interesting comments, K.

                                  Given the realities of business, I'm sure that you're correct in assuming that manufacturers tend to put in too little "good stuff" rather than too much. As for deciding how much is "good enough", I guess that's for each person to decide. I've also never run across any complaints that the conductive layer is "too thick", although I have read a number of comments that a pan is "too heavy", which is really another way of saying the same thing.

                                  I'd guess that for thicknesses up to 1 cm or so, more is probably better. Since no manufacturers that I'm aware of approach that limit, I suppose we can conclude that more IS better (keeping in mind the tradeoffs in terms of weight and cost).

                                  Our mutual friend Chemicalkinetics may have some insights to share regarding this issue. He's always impressed me with his technical savvy.

                                  TS

                                  1. re: tanuki soup
                                    k
                                    kaleokahu Dec 31, 2011 11:05 AM

                                    Hi, tanuki:

                                    Re: "good enough" being subjective, yes that is true. I find two interesting things here:

                                    (1) It is situational: My 1mm nonstick pan is good enough when I'm carrying it for miles on my back with 50 other pounds; my 12-pound saute would be "too thick". I just know that, at home, the former is too thin, and the latter is not too thick.

                                    (2) Opportunities to change our judgments are limited. The market presents us with many choices, but the range of those choices is more limited than we think when it comes to thickness. With the exception of explorers like you, most folks are going to use what they have, learning workarounds, turning out dishes that make them happy, and stop there. This can result in confirmation biases like the "cast iron evenly conducts heat" falsehood. It is relatively hard work--and somewhat pricey--to seek out (reach back into the past, mostly) thicker cookware with which to make comparisons. IMO, unless someone who has cooked on dreck all their lives actually tries something better, it's hard for them to understand or appreciate the benefit OR the diminishing return. And when they *do* replace the dreck, as long as the replacement is just a little better, it's likely to be touted as "good enough"--anything $1 more expensive or 4 oz. heavier is likely to be considered a waste.

                                    I really think that there ought to be some way, besides cooking classes, to put trial pans in the hands of shoppers, such as a "lending library" or a local culinary club. We might even be able to do that here on CH, if the powers approved. But the way things are now, most folks are left to go by hearsay, some informed, some the opposite. There is a need for something like this, as witnessed by the success and popularity of Cooks Illustrated's limited and non-technical (and IMO semi-corrupt) gear reviews.

                                    Enough. It's nice musing with you.

                                    Aloha,
                                    Kaleo

                      Show Hidden Posts