Windsor pans or saucers for sauces? I'm confused.

[rbraham]

I'm making sauces galore. I see descriptions of the Windsor and the saucier pans matching almost word for word. What gives?

I cook 99% of the time for two.

Finally, as to design. I'm not going to buck a century(?) of evidence, but doesn't the broader the base the quicker the reduction. I don't know the physics; I can't figure out how the sloping sides make up for it. (Something goes on similarly in coal and nuke generators, I guess.)

Thanks,
Rob

[rbraham]

Is the tin too wonky on this?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...

[TraderJoe]

There isn't any tin left in places on the bottom. On a large monitor I can see a lot of bare copper. If the price is right it might be worth picking up but don't forget to calculate not only re-tinning but all of the freight.

[rbraham]

Bia cordon Bleu ?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BIA-CORDON-BLEU-FRANCE-12-HAMMERED-COPPER-POT-W-FORGED-STEEL-RIVETED-HANDLE-NR-/150827349041?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item231e02b431#ht_2469wt_922

Art d' Vivre?

Ring any bells?

Matfer

http://www.ebay.com/itm/330739972079?...

I'll stop doing this soon when my tin chops get good. Sorry for being a pain.

[kaleokahu]

Hi, Rob:

No, I don't think it's too bad--normal wear. The tin on that last (better) Windsor I pointed you to was even better, and it went unsold at <$40.

Re: the BIA vs. Bourgeat post, the BIA is a very small pan and while the scale makes it appear thick, it's probably a 2mm pan. The Bourgeat's the real deal, probably 30-40 years past being new--a sweet spot. But the tin's been recently scoured to look good in the photo.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[rbraham]

"BUT" the tin's been scoured..." Implication?

OK. News and queries.

Mauviel w/ S'S:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/110889833577?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649#ht_500wt_922

In for it. That's me.....ah..
..I asked: iron handles.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/320918591048?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649#ht_3920wt_966

Huge Fait tout even with shipping could be worth it

Also on my scope:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/221038782439?...

Art de Vivre?

Don't tell my wife, yet.

[jljohn]

Hey Rob,

There is a lot of great copper out there, and ferreting it out can be difficult. Others around here are much better at it than me, but I would be happy to point you toward some great, inexpensive, stuff if I knew what you were really looking for. Based on what you are putting up here from ebay, it seems that you are just looking for a good deal on any small tin-lined copper piece. Do you still want a 1.2--2.0 Qt Windsor or Saucier, or are you second guessing that? And have you decided on tin-lined, or are you interested in stainless? Finally, if you are simply linking to ebay auctions so you can learn how to assess tin linings, it's probably not an issue, but if you are actually planning on bidding on a piece, linking to it here may only increase your competition and, therefore, your price.

Best,

Jeremy

[rbraham]

In order:
Tine line Windsor
Tin lined 3-4 quart sauce
Tin Saute (8")
SS Fryin pan (8" and 10")

You'r right of course about bidding

[jljohn]

What's your email?

[rbraham]

[e-mail]

no i hope i didnt win any auctions

[jljohn]

email sent

[kaleokahu]

The implication being the tin is now thinner, and the seller did it intentionally to try to make a buck.

I see only the Mauviel poele--you say Fait Tout?

I know nothing of Art de Vivre, but it looks to be a 2mm pan at 1,1 kilo. THey got the design elements right.

[rbraham]

ive got 20 hrs on the Bourgeat mentioned above. email me w/ advice?))

[rbraham]

Nm

[rbraham]

searing on tin:

how do i do it?

no oil no nuttin but high sear. then finish up in oven.

standard method for duk breast fowl breast halibut et

fuking see and quotes are broken

[kaleokahu]

Hi, Rob: "no oil no nuttin but high sear. then finish up in oven."

Not advisable. Best you can do is preheat oiled pan to around 400, make your flop, and then goose the heat. Oven finishing is as normal.

If you must high sear in unoiled copper at full heat before the flop, it should be lined with SS, nickel or silver.

This is actually one of the rare uses where bare cast iron may be the best choice.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[rbraham]

I'm. starting a new thread on vintage copper cookware i.d.s.

[kaleokahu]

Don't you dare.

[rbraham]

10" Mauviel S'S lined "made in France" bronze $70 go for it?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...

[kaleokahu]

Hi, Rob:

It's a good buy at $70. It's difficult to tell how thick it is. And there's something about the marks that is odd--I can't make out the one next to "Made in France". To me a pouring lip on a poele is not worth paying extra for.

I would contact the seller, and ask about the mark, thickness and weight. But then you run the risk that they'll *post* good answers, and the price goes up...

The same seller also has a sauteuse evassee listed, price presently $56.50. http://www.ebay.com/itm/7-INCH-MAUVIE...
I thought that was what you were after.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[rbraham]

The 7" is exactly like the Bourgeat I regret so deeply and am returning.

I am now high bidder on Dehillerin sauce pot at $100 plus $15 shipping:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...

Please tell me please that I didn't screw myself....

[kaleokahu]

Nope, that's a nice pan. Very versatile and thick. However, with 23 bids already, this is probably headed to $200 or more. I would not go much past $140.

[rbraham]

Jeez K., can you be my purchase advisor? Sort of like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_...

[kaleokahu]

OK, you're Duveen. But I'm not responding to your other thread because I haven't quite completed my batterie yet. Two years ago, Mauviel was getting all the attention. Now it's Dehillerin that gets crazy prices. I'm keeping a little bit of knowledge to myself for a little while.

But I don't mind helping friends, Duveen.

Bernie

[kaleokahu]

Um, Rob... Would you e-mail me directly? I have a lead for you... [e-mail]

Aloha,
Kaleo

[jljohn]

If you are willing to pay $100 for a single 1.3 Qt saucepan without a lid that looks to be about 2.5mm-3mm thick, why not buy this set from Peter for $260 (without lids) or $340 (with lids). That way you get a .75 Qt, 1 Qt, 1.5 Qt, and a 2 Qt for $65 per pot and $20 per lid. I've heard, though not from Peter himself, that he no longer has all the lid sizes any more. If he really is down that low on stock, he might be willing to sell you just one or two pots and lids. I have the set, and I'll say this. I have an old Williams Sonoma pan and several old E. Dehillerin pans that I bought used, and the saucepans from Peter do everything the great old thick pans do, and they do it just was well. If you are buying a pan in part for its maker's mark (for resale value, collecting, obsessiveness, etc), then skip Peter's set, but if you just want great copper, you really cannot beat the price.

(I have no affiliation with Peter or Rocky Mountain Retinning. I am just happy with my set, and I hate to see folks purchase a single saucepan for a price that could get them an entire array of comparable pans, unless they have some other reason for it.)

[kaleokahu]

Hi, Jeremy: "...if you just want great copper, you really cannot beat the price [of RMR's 4-pan set].

That's what I've been saying ever since I got the set from Peter 2 years ago. IMO the only good reasons anyone could have not to buy these are inability to front $260 or if you *require* SS linings.

For Rob's benefit, mine mike out at 2.8mm.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[rbraham]

Help request, leaving aside offers for the moment:

My wife is packing the untouched Bourgeat for return and it has these black globs near the handle. We have know idea how they got there, but more importantly, what do we do?

They will only accept it "untouched." Am I screwed? It's a lot of $.

[kaleokahu]

Hi, Rob: NEI with the black globs. Solid? Gooey? Food? Metal?

I would try a little acetone on a cotton ball or Q-tip to start.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[rbraham]

visual only. didnt tou h the damn thing just hung it on a hook.

r

[rbraham]

looks good. but honestly how many sau e pans do i need
?

soup bolognese rattatoullie soffrito first....

[kaleokahu]

Rob:

E-mail me?

Kaleo

[jljohn]

At least four, of course! :)

Seriously, I always thought a 1.5 Qt and either a 2.5 or 3 Qt were a nice, fairly minimal, pairing for saucepans, but I'll admit that it has been nice to have a selection on the smaller end.

[rbraham]

Copper cookware porn alert:

Jerk-off photos here--

http://www.ecabonline.com/2010/06/col...

Including, for that extra _frisson_ of fantasy of the user, Martha Stewart's collection. We can pretend she's having us over for a snack, and we're chit-chatting about our little bits of knowledge and shared slightly guilt pleasures....

[rbraham]

I apologize for the obscenity in my previous post. It crossed a boundary.

[kaleokahu]

Hey, Rob:

The only boundary you crossed with me was using "frisson" and "Martha Stewart" in the same sentence.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[rbraham]

Well, friends and lovers, this is now on my stovetop:

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/raymond_2209_9889876

1 5/8 flared sauté pan w/o lid, from HotelRestaurantSupply.com.

It was the curved lip thing that tipped the choice over for me.

But now--PREDICTABLY--I'm having buyer's remorse, and thinking I should have bought the Mauviel (NB: not called flared sautéed pan but Windsor)

http://www.mauvielusa.com/EnlargedPro... (but in a larger size

)

That baby has oblique Abe Lincoln geometry similar to a nuke cooling tower. It can _reduce_.

I'm surprised how saucier-ish the Bourgeat pan. Perhaps they are as upfront about it as the can be, but can't account for every moron out there.

I lost my keys two weeks ago.
I lost my iPhone last week.
I lost my wallet today.
I quit smoking three weeks ago, so I sense a causation.

Please say something nice or empathetic to me, even though it is not in the technical purview of this board.

Rob

[kaleokahu]

Hi, Rob:

Gee, since the loss of your smokes, wallet, phone and keys, I'll go easy on you...

The Bourgeat is more like a tallish poele, the Mauviel more like a saucepan. You should have both (when you find your wallet). If I were the decider, could have only one, and already had a poele, I would take the Windsor.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[rbraham]

"if I were the decider, could only have one, and already had a poele, I would take the Windsor."

K, I think I know what you're saying, but that sentence is illiogical. If you already had the poele, there is only one option, and that's not really a decision, is it? :)

So if I said my first fancy-schmancy pot--I propose that the name "copper" be changed to "fancy-schmancy"--would be for saucing and reduction, it's not the Burgeat flared thing but the Mauviel.

No one ever mentioned poelling this whole fucking thread.

Live and learn. I know I'm being too anal about this. I'm going to wind up having takeout Chinese and pizza anyway....

[kaleokahu]

Hi, Rob:

Relax, you've had a tough week. A poele is just--to borrow your phrase--a "fancy-schmancy" name for a frypan. I see that Bourgeat, and it looks more like a tall frypan. To revert even further to American useage, I see it as a "Chicken Fryer"--a taller version of a skillet.

The functional difference between the two pans you are considering is that the Bourgeat will start reductions with a very high surface-to-volume ratio and I think (I haven't done the math) maintain it if not increase it as the liquid gets reduced. The Mauviel on the other hand I think will tend to be more constant and linear with STV.

I'm underqualified to extol and expound on one being markedly better than the other. But I'm just cheapskate enough that I'd pass on the Bourgeat and reduce in a frypan if I wanted that shape.

Oh, and good move giving up the smokes. Smoking caused a great deal of misery in my family. Beat it.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[rbraham]

Yeah. I look at that Bourgeat thing on my stove and I try to figure out what the hell cooking it is good for. Nuttin'; say it again, nuttin'. Except maybe for some Hollandaise things. Perhaps now that you mention it fry chicken, which makes sense I guess, but is not something I do, and if I did I could buy 20 Lodge pans for that. Why the hell is that called a fait-tout anyway? It seems a fait-rien.

Looks like I'm going to pack up the Bourgeat, pay shipping and as yet unknown restocking charge, thereby losing any savings I thought I had made, and buy for the same price the Mauviel Cuprinox Windsor in the just-under-1-quart size (1/2 the Bourgeat size, but it's better anyway), and come out not too behind, a sadder but wiser man.

[GH1618]

I don't see the problem. In your original post you wrote that you wanted a pan for making sauces. How is it unsuitable for that purpose?

[paulj]

Directement de la poêle au brasier.

http://www.homehardware.ca/fr/rec/ind...
Lodge POELE FRIRE FONTE

[sueatmo]

The pan you bought is beautiful. It should be a joy to cook with. Make something wonderful for yourself and be happy. Even better make something wonderful for someone else, and make them happy.

Even though you've lost some important things, you are gaining mastery over a nasty habit that can shorten your life. Congratulations. So, even though losing important things is a hassle, you are gaining something better that what you lost.

I hope the coming week is better for you.

[rbraham]

Thanks for the kind words.
I might ship the thing back, if they'll take it, and thus make up in postage any savings I've gained.

BTW, has anyone heard of copper pan/iron handles marked Harvard Made in France? There's one up in eBay now...

[kaleokahu]

Hey, Rob:

It's Havard, not Harvard. They're a reputable maker, just not retailed in USA as far as I know. It can be good stuff--I really like their loop handles. I have not seen any very thick Havard pieces, but I have some of their small round gratin/rondeaux in the 2mm range that are very nice.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[rbraham]

The Havard pan on eBay--7" skillet w/ copper lid, went for $40.

That's a killer price, right?

At present I couldn't even pony up postage fees.

[kaleokahu]

Hi, Rob:

Yes, a "bragging" low price. If you went to try to find that lid, IT alone would probably bring $140. If you could find it.

Rest easy, though. There will always be deals, and one day you will be flush. That's how I console myself about the matching set of 5 Gaillard 3mm saucepans with *vertical* handles that I allowed to go for $150.

If you're into "copper porn", you need to find a copy of "Les Cuivres de Cuisine".

Aloha,
Kaleo

[rbraham]

As original poster, and now a broke OP, could I draw in the collective intelligence here on Aluminum cookware, Al being the next on the copper --> SS hit parade.
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/849058

Thanks,
Rob

[rbraham]

OK, it's checkbook time. I found that Googling the product number is the best and quickest option, better than using the various shopping spiders, and certainly better than eeny-miney-moing. The best price I found for the Bourgeat 1-5/8qrt. flared sauté (Windsor) pan, w/o lid, is $215. (I have seen price spreads of $150[!] on this product. I suspect this store has the best prices on all copperware:

http://www.hotelrestaurantsupply.com

I also found a store in Paris selling the complete Mauviel lines for insanely low prices. The Cuprinox (2.5 mm.) flared sauté pan--if my conversion from the current Euro to USD is right, which it is--costs $155. Ah, the French. I guess with shipping to NYC it's a wash. The website is in French and English:

http://www.e-dehillerin.fr/index.php

I'm also talking by mail w/ a woman on Craigslist, who'se got a few William-Sonoma pots and and an 8-in. pan posted. They're the the 2.0 mm. ones, right? Plus the prices are not so spiffy and I can live w/o sauce pots. This paragraph is to keep my fans happy, who are at the edge of their seat waiting for the latest minutia. I should start a blog.

Best,
Rob

[jljohn]

I just checked out the hotelrestaurantsupply website, and something is wonky (or wonderful) about their Bourgeat listings. See this link: http://www.hotelrestaurantsupply.com/... The link is for an 11" Saute with lid, and they indicate that this stainless-lined copper saute is 1/8" thick! And the price for the pan and lid is $455, which is very low for anything new, stainless-lined, and thick, with a lid. Several of the Bourgeat pieces are listed as being 1/8" thick. I was not aware of anything stainless-lined that was thicker than 2.5mm, but the shipping weight of over 12 pounds indicates that it could be that thick. So, either I am sorely mistaken (I hope this is the case), they just made a mistake, they don't know their product well, or they are engaging in some for of slight of hand (not my assumption here).

Anyone know anything about this Matfer Bourgeat 1/8" thick stainless-lined copper?

[blondelle]

"And the price for the pan and lid is $455, which is very low for anything new, stainless-lined, and thick, with a lid."

$445 is low for a 11" saute pan? Yikes! Got my A-C stainless 10.5 one for $66. Why copper for a saute pan? A saute is usually done fast and hot. Why would you need such temperature control that copper gives for that and also 1/8" thickness? A bit overkill, no? The Iron Chefs manage quite well with lowly A-C Masterchef and turn out world class cuisine. I'm just guessing here but I would assume they have a bit more cooking skill than you have and it's good enough for them :-).

[paulj]

Media threads of have a 'spoilers alert'; some of these Cookware threads need a '$$$ alert'. Since nearly all of my recent pot purchases have in been in the '<$20 at TJMaxx' category, I probably don't belong on these $200 copper pan threads. :)

[jljohn]

Oh, I wouldn't pay that for it. I bought my 11" Copper Saute (1/8" thick) for $75. But it would be a great price (by comparison to others) for a new pan. $455 is substantially less than the 2.5mm Falk or Mauviel, and it's about half the price of custom 1/8" prices I've been quoted.

I've owned the 3 qt ( roughly 10") and the 6 qt (roughly 13") AC saute pans, and on the 10" I had very uneven browning. The 13" was terrible. Unless I constantly shifted the food it was horribly uneven. Copper does a much better job as far as this is concerned.

And I don't consider 1/8" overkill. It does a better job than 2.5mm, and it is still perfectly usable. 1" might be overkill, but not 1/8".

[rbraham]

On Bourgeat prices for "1/8- in pans.

I idiotically read inch for mm. I emailed them to check the specks and he wrote back that he could see nothing wrong with them. I hope I didn't screw the pooch and make him reevaluate his pricing.

I too didn't know Bourgeat is claiming such thickness.

Re buying the fry pan for $75. When? From whom?

[jljohn]

11" Saute actually--just a few weeks ago via Craigslist. I checked ebay and CL daily, and it took a few months, but I found what I was looking for.

[kaleokahu]

Hi, Jeremy:

Good eye. I would want to know the weight of the *pan alone* before I assumed it's 3mm. Even if it's quite thin, the lid will weigh >1 pound, as will the packaging. But it's close enough to wonder. If one reads the blurb literally, it is 3mm of copper PLUS the lining.

Even more interesting to me is that--if true--this raises the possibility that either (a) Falk Culinaire is making thicker bimetal than it is putting in its own pans; and/or (b) Matfer-Bourgeat is making its own (under license or not). Heretofore, I was under the impression Falk was the only maker, and only of the 1.5 and 2.5 overall thicknesses.

Someone should find out for sure if this pan is at least 3mm thick.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[SanityRemoved]

Bourgeat Copper 1-5/8qrt. flared sauté pan weighs 4 lbs 11 oz. Copper, SS lining and cast iron handle. The catalog doesn't list a thickness.

[kaleokahu]

Hi, SR:

I think we may be talking about different pans. jljohn I think was talking about an 11" straight-sided saute. If it is the same pan, judging by total weight, it is not 3mm.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[SanityRemoved]

My bad, for 372128 with lid it is 12 lbs 1 oz.

[kaleokahu]

Hi, SR:

Hey, that's OK. But the sleuthing's not quite over. I think the site says the 12.1 pounds is the *shipping* weight, which I take to mean pan, lid, box, filler, etc. If we're doing this arithmetically, then there's the question of what the handle and the liner weighs. Bourgeat's handles tend to be bigger and bulkier than most (which is *great*), and the SS will add a little extra pudge. Still, if the pan and handle tip the scales at 10 pounds and it's truly 11" in diameter, it may well be 3mm or darn close.

Someone buy one of these, so we can know whether there truly is 3mm bimetal.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[sueatmo]

I own both a medium sized Windsor pan and a smaller saucier, both well made stainless pieces. I seldom use the Windsor, but it is good if I need a lot of sauce. The saucier is best though for wisking because the curves of the interior mirror the curve of t he wisk. However, the Windsor has a lid, and the saucier does not. I use the saucier much more than I do the Windsor. I use the lid to the Windsor more than I do the actual pan. I'd buy a saucier in preference to the Windsor.

[blondelle]

If you have no other saucepans, wouldn't the windsor make a better saucepan replacement than the saucier? I have the 1.5 qt. and the 2.5 qt. All-Clad stainless windsors. pans. I hated the tall narrow shape of the 2 qt. saucepan and didn't like the lack of pouring lips on their saucepans which these have. After I got those I found the 3 qt. saucier with domed lid and helper handle at a price I couldn't resist. Those are hard to find.

Can you justify for me a reason for keeping both the 3 qt. saucier and the 2.5 windsor? A-C is kinda hard to part with :-). Is there something you could do with one but not the other?

[sueatmo]

If you have both, why not keep them. I fully intend to keep all my present pans, including the smaller saucier (All Clad) and my Windsor (Cuisinart).

Have I understood your question?

If you don't have other s/pans, then buy (or keep) the thing(s) you think suit(s) your needs. I simply gave my opinion based on my own usage.

[kaleokahu]

Hi, blondelle: "If you have no other saucepans, wouldn't the windsor make a better saucepan replacement than the saucier?"

Yes, and you would need fewer of them to accommodate a wider range of volumes.

Maybe I'm going to pick a fight here... We always hear that the sauciers, having no "corners", fit whisks better than even the obtuse-angled Windsor shape. While this makes theoretical spatial sense to me, I've never even had a problem getting my whisk down into the "corners" of even a straight-sided saucepan. I "get" the ergonomic advantage of the open angles, but are "corners" a big problem for many Hounds that a smaller whisk can't obviate?

Aloha,
Kaleo

[GH1618]

It isn't only whisking — scraping out the inside of a saucier with a spatula also works better than with a conventional small, straight-sided saucepan. A small (mine is one qt.) saucier is a pleasure to work with. If I wanted a Windsor, it would be in a larger size.

[kaleokahu]

Hi, GH1618:

Okay, but it still looks to me to be a solution in search of a problem...

Aloha,
Kaleo

[GH1618]

One doesn't necessarily replace a small suacepan with a saucier merely to have a different shaped corner. I have a small saucepan of conventional shape made of plain stainless steel, so the bottom heats unevenly over flame (hot spots). And the handle is loose. (On its larger sibling, the handle broke off completely.) When I recently started cooking more, I wanted a pan with better cooking properties for making sauces, so I decided on Al/SS construction. I chose the saucier not only for the rounded corners, but also because the lower height and greater diameter (for the same volume) provides better visibility and access. All of these differences taken together make it a better pan for making sauces, so why not? A multi-ply pan with the same geometry as my old saucepan would have duplicated function, although with a better cooking surface. This was an easy choice.

It would be less clear if I decide that I want a saucepan sized between my 1-qt saucier and my 3.5-qt (conventional) saucepan, where I now have nothing. In that case, should it be a conventional straight-sided geometry, a Windsor, or a saucier?

[kaleokahu]

Well, again, comparing the Mauviel 1.7Q saucier with their 1.8Q Windsor, they're the same diameter at the rim. Just sayin'

[jljohn]

Hey Kaleo,

I think we are discussing a fairly minor nuance at this point, but I actually experience a difference between the Windsor and the Saucier regarding those corners. We are a family of five, so I make a good-sized batch of oatmeal on the stovetop each morning. I was using the Saucier for the last few months until I got the Windsor. Since then I have used the Windsor exclusively, because it sits on the stove ready to go. Stirring the oats in the Saucier was a no brainer--swirl and go--but with the Windsor I have to do the same little corner routine that I needed to do with a standard saucepan. I have to angle the wooden spoon just right to get into that corner. Further confirmation to me of the difference is that when I asked my 6 year old to stir the oats in the Saucier, she always did a fine job, but with the Windsor, she usually misses the 'corners.'

Stirring in a Saucepan is not a problem--the corners just take a little attention; The Windsor takes less attention; and the Saucier takes almost none.

To me, the Saucier and the Windsor, while maintaining very similar functions differ thusly: the Saucier majors in stir & whisk-ability, and the Windsor majors in maintaining proportionality in reducing sauces. Neither does either of these poorly, but the difference is there. I would suggest that the lack of corners in a Saucier is no more a "solution is search of a problem" than the proportionality of the Windsor or the lower sidewalls of the Saute v. a Rondeau, or the curved sides of a Frying Pan v. a Saute, etc.

[GH1618]

Maybe you need this to clean out the corner:

http://www.zesco.com/iSi-B103-Silicon...

[kaleokahu]

Hi, Jeremy:

You make good points as always. I was merely asking aloud if things sticking in the corners of a Windsor was a problem for anyone. If I am reading you correctly, it's not a problem for you (since you now use the Windsor exclusively for oatmeal), but you liked not having to pay attention with the saucier. I can envision oatmeal to be nearly a worst-case test medium after it thickens.

I glibly remarked on the solution/problem mostly because the saucier is a relatively recent addition to the classic batterie, and the same "problem" has existed from time immemorial. The only equivalent with any real history that I'm aware of is the Scots' Bowl. Perhaps the Scots were ahead of the French when it came to porridge!

Best,
Kaleo

[jljohn]

Hi Kaleo,

Re: "If I am reading you correctly, it's not a problem for you (since you now use the Windsor exclusively for oatmeal), but you liked not having to pay attention with the saucier.", I'll say this: Dealing with the corners of the Windsor is less of a hassle than bending down to open a cabinet door and take out a different pan. Now, maybe if I drank my coffee before starting the morning oats, I might feel differently about it!

[sueatmo]

I like my smaller saucier because I find it does an efficient job of making sauces, and my wisking seems to work better. But I have occasionally use the Windsor and it worked fine too.

[kaleokahu]

Hi, sueatmo:

If you have all 3 (straight, Windsor and sauciere) in roughly the same capacities, have you compared them in terms of *need* to stir, heating and reducing time, and heat settings with various sauces? It occurs to me that the latter two, having smaller bottoms relative to rim size, are generally going to take more heat and time to come up, with a temptation for the chef to maybe goose the heat a little more to speed reductions. Which might also require more and rapt stirring. Have you found this to be the case?

Since switching to mostly cooking with wood and coal, I've become more attuned to how much heat is actually delivered to the pans' contents--you can't just turn a dial and instantly up your highest heat. And "highest" obviously varies with the size and quality of the fire you built--an hour before. The cool and unexpected obverse of this frustrating downside has been that my cooking has generally improved by slowing me and my preparations down.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[sueatmo]

No. I make sauces in the Windsor so rarely, that I really don't have a good opinion on using that pan, except that I remember it works fine. I don't do reductions very often.

The AC saucier makes a fine Bechamel--that I know--without needing the old fashioned double boiler. My stove runs a bit hot, I think. Medium heat is probably close to med hot on some stoves. I keep an eagle eye on the pot and generally reduce heat, rather than increasing it.

And my cooking improved when I learned to use medium heat for almost everything! So slower is probably better in terms of outcomes. But I am impatient, you see. I had to cook for decades to learn this.

If you are turning out lovely meals on a wood burning stove, kudos. I could never do that.

[kaleokahu]

Hi, sueatmo:

I never said I was good, but I am improving! But thanks. So far I am enjoying that which Charles Dickens called the "red hot tyrant".

Aloha,
Kaleo

[paulj]

I normally make Bechamel, and similar thickened sauces, in a 'fry pan'. As long as I can cover the bottom and corners with a silicon spatula the pan shape does not matter much. And since I normally only need a cup or two of sauce, I don't need a deep pan. If I need more, I can always use a sauce pan.

[TraderJoe]

wouldn't the windsor make a better saucepan replacement than the saucier?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
blondelle
Not for most users. The narrow base of a Windsor limits it's use compared to a sauce pot.
I'd certainly keep both the Windsor and the sauce pot. When whisking a sauce or something that requires constant attention the saucier is perfect. For reducing sauce rapidly or something like balsamic rapidly that requires little attention the Windsor is my go to pot. I'd never give up either one.
As far as the tall sauce pots go have you considered a wide narrow 2 qt pot like the Anodized Calphalon commercial?

TJ

[kaleokahu]

Hi, TJ: "The narrow base of a Windsor limits it's use compared to a sauce pot. "

Silly me bothering you again with facts... But since you favor Mauviel-made pans, I checked the bases of their 1.8Q Windsor and 1.7Q sauteuse evassee. The Windsor actually has a noticeably wider base--6.5" vs. 5.75".

Aloha,
Kaleo

[blondelle]

Thanks TJ. The funny thing is that the base of the 2.5 qt. windsor is about the same as the 2 qt. tall narrow A-C saucepan. I guess I will just have to resign myself to keeping all this A-C. There are worse fates in this world! Maybe I can lure a young, handsome chef to marry me for my cookware...LOL! Have 30+ pieces of LC and A-C. Will have to get cooking!

[TraderJoe]

"There are worse fates in this world! Maybe I can lure a young, handsome chef to marry me for my cookware"

LOL I bet you won't have any trouble with that. ;)

AC is nice cookware. I like the pieces I have. One of my favorites is a rounded bottom AC-LTD that I bought at a blow out sale years ago. My Calphalon Windosor pot has a much smaller bottom so all of these change a bit with brand/capacity/series. I think you will be glad you have both in the end. :)

TJ

[sueatmo]

Gracious, keep that stuff, even if you have pack some of it away. There will come a time in your life when you will want it. Be thankful. I've had to gather pots together for years, and I only have on piece of AC.

[paulj]

What kinds of sauces do you make? In what quantities?

[rbraham]

The five mother sauces and their derivatives, naturally.
I make mayo stuff in a pestle or bowl.
Some small blender stuff.
Plain old stock reductions.

Two-quart? One?

Rob

[GH1618]

I like my 1-qt saucier, but I think a 2-qt is probably a better value, especially if you are going for a more expensive type of pan. The 1-qt is fine for a lot of things for two persons, but on the other hand, it's frustrating when you need a little more capacity and don't have it.

[rbraham]

I'm leaning towards a Windsor pot. Some questions:

1. Copper stainless lined. Can't use metal whisks?

I have a nice bendable rubber flattish whisk, which would take care of this question above if true, _and_ gets around the issue of getting full access to the bottom of the pan, which was cited as a benefit of the saucier.

2. Does Bourgeat make a Windsor (evasse, fai-tout, splayed, whatever)? I have an email in to CulinaryCook.com, the US distributor of Bourgeat.

Any thoughts?

(Signed),
A would be Saucier to the Stars, with the motto "A Poor Workman Blames His Tools"

[GH1618]

Sure you can use a metal whisk in a SS-lined pan. Why not?

You want copper? Here's a Mauviel for a mere $439.95:

http://www.metrokitchen.com/product/M...

[rbraham]

I've looked at Mauviel all over, and for the 1-quarter--which I figure is fine for me--it's like $325.

Which is a kick in the head. I'll let you know if I can pull this off without having to unclench my wife's fist to get my balls back.

I like Bourgeat because of the rounded rims of their product line, which seems particularly attractive when dealing with completed sauces.

Rob

[jljohn]

I'll toss this out there about the rolled or rounded rim. I like the rounded rim on the Falk saucier, and on a straight-sided pot or pan, the rounding does make pouring neater, but the flared sides of the Windsor performs much the same function. I am able to pour out of mine without much dribble at all (if any).

[jljohn]

Hi,

A metal whisk would be a no-no in a tin-lined copper pot, but a stainless-lined pot can handle the whisk without a problem. I only have one stainless-lined copper pot (the rest are tin-lined), and it is my saucier, because I want to be able to whisk in it.

If you want a a new Mauviel 1.8 Qt Windsor (stainless-lined) with a lid (which is handy if you want it to do double for a sauce pan), take a look at this one from East Coast Tinning for $300: http://www.eastcoasttinning.com/coppe... From what I can tell, you are paying a little less than the pan itself would normally cost, and you are getting the lid too. It's a good deal for a new pan. Oh, and I have no affiliation whatsoever.

[GH1618]

I'll add that I'm having a trouble reconciling your remark about workmen and their tools with your expressed desire for the most expensive type of sauce pan made, particularly since you need only a one qt. size. I'll bet any competent sauce chef could do as well with my MC2 aluminum/SS 1-qt saucier as you will do with a copper Windsor costing three times as much.

[rbraham]

Huh. Will think about that.

The reason I had in mind for the whole copper thing is that I have a procrastinating mind, in the short decision-making time sense. I figured the copper could save my ass, what with fast heat-dissipation/heat up when nudged around.

Perhaps that description speaks _against_ copper.

Re professional kitchens, cooks are known to use the cheapest serviceable equipment around.
a) they're good, and can do almost anything with anything; and
b) they and clean-up knock the crap out out of them.

The first is not me, altthough--as my motto states--at the end of the day I stupidly believe clothes make the man.
The second I hope to avoid, and will for the simple reason I'm not a professional saucier.

Rob

[SanityRemoved]

Matfer Bourgeat carries what they call Flared Saute Pans. Here are some item numbers from their catalog for the Bourgeat Copper line:

Size Without Lid With Lid
1 5/8 qt 373020 373120
2 3/4 qt 373024 373124

[GH1618]

Cooking for two is the important point here, I think. I find that my 1-qt saucier is perfect for cooking for two. It seems to me that the value of a Windsor would be more evident as an alternative to a straight-sided three or four quart saucepan.

[kaleokahu]

Hi, Rob:

You've gotten good advice from all so far. I'll just add that Windsors or Fait Touts excel because the surface-to-volume ratios stay relatively constant as the reduction progresses. This does *not* happen in a straight-sided saucepan, where the surface area remains the same regardless of volume. And IMO it does not happen as dependably with round-sided evassees or skillet style sauciers.

A good general rule of thumb in reduction saucemaking is that, in normally-proportioned straight-sided pans, the pan should be roughly 2/3 full. To follow this rule, several (or many) transfers to ever-smaller pans can be required. A Windsor eliminates or reduces the number of transfers, which can also reduce the number of pans in your batterie, saving you space and $$$.

Hope this helps.
Aloha,
Kaleo

[paulj]

Why the 2/3?

[kaleokahu]

HI, Paul:

Not 100% sure, but common sense tells me it was someone's (Escoffier?) idea of an ideal surface-to-volume ratio that became a convention of sorts.

Aloha,
Kaleo

[TraderJoe]

I'd never be with out a Windor pot. They are not as convenient for stirring but not all sauces need that much attention and the sides of a Windsor get more heat allowing a reduction to take place more rapidly.
I have and like both but my Saucier does get used a bit more frequently.

TJ

[paulj]

Surface area and reduction rate are only part of the sauce making story. Not all sauce call for much reduction. Ease of stirring covering the bottom is also relevant. And in some cases, sides that reduce splash and spilling are valuable. And for large volumes of sauces, it may be better to use a deep pan that matches the burner, than a shallower one that extends well beyond the burner.

[SanityRemoved]

Although similar, I think you will find more Windsor pans in a wider variety of sizes. Windsors tend to take up less real estate due to their height.

I use Windsor pans and and a saucier. :)

[jljohn]

In a sense, the Windsor and the Saucier are almost identical pans. The common nomenclature doesn't help, but when you think of them by their other, less common, names the relation is more clear. The windsor is sometimes called a "splayed sauteuse evasee" and the saucier is sometimes called a "curved (or "curved-splayed") sauteuse evasee." The point is that they are very much the same type of pan, but the side-wall geometry differs a bit.

I find the saucier ever-so-slightly better for stirring purposes, because the curved walls match up with a stirring spoon best. There is no place in the saucier that my wooden spoon doesn't easily reach when I stir the pan. But this is a very minimal difference. Both pans provide easy access to the inside for stirring, and both evaporate well. My windsor and saucier get used about the same (one is a 3 qt and one is a 2 qt)--I choose between them based on factors entirely unrelated to side-wall geometry.

In the end, the Saucier and the Windsor accomplish much the same thing--they increase the surface area of the liquid in the pan to increase rate of evaporation, thereby increasing the rate of reduction. Think of it this way: if you pour a cup of water into a 10" frying pan and a cup of water into a standard 1 Qt saucepan. If all other things are equal (pan conductivity, BTU's, etc), the water in the frying pan will evaporate away much quicker than the water in the sauce pan. This is simply because the frying pan provides the water a greater surface area.

Hope this helps!

Jeremy

[GH1618]

I don't know who uses a Windsor pan — I suspect it's mostly a nostalgia thing — but my saucier is my favorite pan. The rounded corners make mixing easier, especially with a whisk, and the aluminum body (lined with SS) carries the heat up the sides.