HOME > Chowhound > Cookware >

Discussion

Mauviel M250 Saucepan sizes.

So I have an obscene amount of amazon gift card money to spend because I sold them all my old electronics. I'm pretty happy with my cookware at the moment: stainless skillets, a big stockpot, a cast iron skillet, 2 le creuset dutch ovens (3.5 and 5.5) and a 10 inch nonstick. My saucepans are old and outdated with disc bottoms and I was thinking of finally replacing them. They work ok but they do scorch food and any sort of starch sticks to the bottom of the pan.

Initially I was looking at All-Clad D5 2 quart to replace my most used crappy 2 quart but then realized it's kind of a ripoff. If I'm going to spend that money it almost makes more sense to look at copper bi-metal. That said even 2 quarts is a little bit small which leaves me with my dilemma.

Mauviel makes a 1.9 qt and a 2.6 qt saucepan in 2.5mm copper with stainless lining. There is a $100!!!! price difference between these two pans. However I use my 2 qt saucepan for a few specific things, mostly rices/pastas/polenta etc and sauces, most often tomato based. I feel like a 2.5qt saucepan is honestly the perfect size. As much as I use my 2 quart there are times when (basically whenever I'm cooking for more than 2 people) it gets crowded fast. I guess my concern is whether or not the 1.9 quart is really small or if I should just stick with that size and save the money. Or alternatively do the Mauviel saucepans run on the smaller/narrower side and it's better to aim bigger?

Does anyone have any experience with either of these pans? I know they are expensive and copper is sort of a luxury item but I do have the money to spend and I get excited about using the proper tools in the kitchen. Also everything I've heard about copper (heat response/evenness etc) sounds like something I need to experience. Also my saucepans suck...

Thanks!

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. Hi, Wapptor:

    I have saucepans of these capacities, but not in Mauviel bimetal. My take is that both are useful sizes, but I can see how the 1/2Q volume difference makes them more similar than dissimilar.

    Which one to buy? Based on your listing of things you cook, I'd take the 2.5Q because the surface-to-volume ratio might not be so important. But if you plan to really get into sauces (and cook mostly for two), the 1.9 might be a better choice.

    There is always the silver lining of buying at retail to consider--you can always pick up the other one at a later date. Lucky you to have such a dilemma!

    Finally, have you considered a splayed/Windsor?

    Aloha,
    Kaleo

    3 Replies
    1. re: kaleokahu

      So I'm thinking about this again. About to order actually. Price is about the same for the 10 inch saute and the 2.5qt saucepan. I know copper saute's are supposed to be awesome and despite an army of skillets I don't have a saute pan. Any thoughts? I want to make sauces and risottos and things in this pan and just over the weekend making a risotto I read that a large flat pan is ideal (i used my 3.5 qt dutch oven). Now I can't decide!!!

      1. re: Wapptor

        I think a saute pan takes more advantage of copper's strengths than a saucepan, and a 10" is a handy size that probably will be in constant use.

        The only disadvantage is the weight, with the lack of a helper handle. There are quite a few recipes for which the saute pan full of ingredients is put into and taken out of the oven, and for me that's tough to do safely without a helper handle. But for those with stronger wrists and arms, it may not be an issue.

        1. re: Wapptor

          Hi, Wapptor:

          I think the 10-inch saute and the 2.5Q saucepan make an ideal starter set.

          Aloha,
          Kaleo

      2. For me 1.9 is a very small pan. 2.7 is far more useable so at least for me the extra $100 is well spent. I have a 2.25 quart Mauviel (2mm-SS) and a Falk 2 quart (2.5mm-SS). Even with only a .25 Quart difference I grab the Mauviel more often.
        Like Kaleo I'm mighty fond of a Windsor pot as well.

        1. The smaller size is a pound lighter, if that's a consideration at all. But it's also only 16 cm across (just over six inches), with sides over half that -- proportions I found confining when I used the All-Clad 2 qt (6" x 4", roughly).

          The 2.6 qt, 18 cm Mauviel saucepan is really a more versatile pan, and I think would be worth the difference both in room to whisk and stir, and in bigger capacity for grain dishes.

          1 Reply
          1. re: ellabee

            I'm thinking I agree. I always try to buy pieces I think will get me the most value.

          2. I think Kaleo is right, get the 2.6qt saute pan. I have both, a 1.9qt saute and sauce pan, and find myself reaching for saute much more. But if I had to do it over again I would go with at least a 2.5qt. The 1.9qt is fine for servings of two one or two people or just string beans, but if it's broccoli or something of more volume it does get cramped. My 1.9qt saute measures: 2.5"h by 8"w - pretty small.

            1. I went with the 2.5qt saucepan. It's the piece I need most. A saute IS appealing but I have two dutch ovens for braises and plenty of skillets. Protip: sign up for Amazon Prime membership and you get free next day shipping. Just have to remember to cancel it before it automatically renews. :D

              2 Replies
              1. re: Wapptor

                Hi, Wapptor:

                Good choice.

                Do you have enough gift card money for the saute as well? That pan will probably cause you to discard all your other skillets (maybe excepting one bare CI).

                Aloha,
                Kaleo

                1. re: kaleokahu

                  Nah I don't but Mauviel makes a nice 1.9 qt saucepan/3 qt saute set in M250 that could make a perfect gift when my Birthday rolls around... >.> Thanks guys!