Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > Cookware >
Aug 8, 2014 01:16 PM

Should I stop baking with pyrex?


I always knew not to use pyrex with direct flame (on the stovetop or in the broiler), but I'd thought it was fine in the oven and microwave until recently coming across all these discussions of it breaking/cracking/shattering/exploding from oven or microwave use, while in the oven/microwave, or while sitting on the kitchen counter. It looks like a lot of ppl have issues with pyrex even when following typical warnings (don't go from cold fridge to hot oven, don't put cold food in hot dish, don't put hot dish directly on cold counter, etc.). I have zero interest in having my meal lost, cleaning up glass (especially in the oven), or getting injured by some flying shard.

We can still add things to our registry- should I stop baking with pyrex and replace it now? (I tend to use their pie plates for pies and rectangular pans for baking macaroni & cheese/cakes/lasagna.)

  1. Pyrex is no more likely to break than Anchor, another brand of tempered glass ovenware. Glass ovenware can shatter, but it is more likely to happen by being dropped on the floor than by other means. When it breaks it goes into lots of relatively small pieces. You are not likely to be injured unless you are careless when you glean it up. If you want never to have to clean up broken glass, you should get rid of all of your glassware of every type.

    7 Replies
    1. re: GH1618

      Yes, sorry. I didn't mean stop baking with pyrex while continuing to bake with other glass- I meant to ask whether I should stop baking with glass. (pyrex just happens to be the only glass bakeware I own.) I never drop my bakeware on the floor really. I'm talking about glass bakeware shattering/cracking/whatever you want to call it while sitting in the oven, on the counter, or in the microwave, etc.

      Dropping a glass & cleaning it up are no big deal to me. But putting together an elaborate large dish in a 11x14 pyrex to have it end up all over the oven and the glass too- that's a bit much of a hassle imo compared to just cleaning up a broken drinking glass from the floor.

      1. re: Shkra11

        Everything is a tradeoff, but the complaints you read misrepresent the risk. There are not "lots" of people with breakage issues compared to the millions of people who use this type of ovenware. I have used Pyrex pie plates for about 40 years without a breakage. I also use Anchor baking dishes which I have had for about 20 years. If one broke in the oven I would clean it up and likely buy another.

        But if this is for a registry and you want something better, try for a Pillivuyt ceramic baking dish. I have a couple of pieces of this and it's very nice.

        1. re: GH1618

          I meant "lots" compared to the none I thought it would happen to if ppl took reasonable precautions and didn't cook on stovetops or in broilers, etc.

          1. re: Shkra11

            but on that very long thread, if you take out the people who didn't "follow the rules", there's not much spontaneous breakage out there.

            Does it happen? Yes. Is it "a lot" of spontaneous breakage? No.

        2. re: Shkra11

          it's more complicated than that.

          Pyrex as a "brand name" was originally applied to low expansion glass.

          big broad brush strokes, 'borosilicate' glass - aka lab ware - versus 'soda lime' glass aka 'window glass.

          "low expansion" was of benefit because as glass is heated / cooled it expands / contracts - like any other solid - and any small weakness causes the glass to break / explode - pick your term. the low expansion factor simply means the glass is subject to lower strains and stress in heating / cooling making it less likely to break.

          'tempered' glass refers to glass that has been heated to it's near melt temperature, then cooled at a slow even rate. that slow cooling produces smaller 'crystals' in the glass, which results in 'safety glass' - glass which fractures into small chunks vs. large jagged shards.

          for Pyrex, it all gets a lot more fuzzy - because the trademark "Pyrex" was sold - and badda-bing-badda-boom - now applies to el cheapo soda lime glass that has been tempered.

          1. re: PSRaT

            Tempered soda-lime glass was used by Corning for ovenware long before the brand was sold (or licensed). US-made Pyrex ovenware is made in one of the original Corning plants. I don't believe that current US-made Pyrex is any more prone to breakage than it always was, but the creation of the World Wide Web makes it easy for people to raise alarms about it. In the olden days, when we broke a glass item we just cleaned it up and moved on.

            1. re: PSRaT

              The best bet to avoid problematic glassware is to troll the charity shops (nd maybe your parent's kitchens ;) ) for pre-trademark-sale Pyrex. I have a few pieces from my mom that have never given me any trouble.

        3. My short answer is no - Pyrex is still good for baking in, it's dishwasher safe and doesn't warp or deform. I've never had a glass baking dish break, and I'm not specially careful. But if you've been having actual problems - not just reading about others' problems - that's different.

          28 Replies
          1. re: John Francis

            I've never had a problem myself and have been using (probably new) pyrex in baking for over 10 years. Didn't even know that these problems existed until a few days ago.

            1. re: Shkra11

              Hi, Shrka:

              These Pyrex threads are hilarious. Folks who have themselves never had a bad experience insinuate that their good luck means exploding Pyrex doesn't happen with any frequency. Some will even argue with posters who *have* had glass bakeware explode, telling them that they misused the product without knowing ANYTHING about how it was used.

              I've given the statistics in earlier threads which you can search out, and there are multiple sites replete with honest accounts of exploding glass bakeware causing injuries. It happens, and often enough that there are complaints, lawsuits, and million-dollar verdicts for some who've battled the makers. There are hundreds of these honest accounts which are not capable of being explained away as misuse. And I'm confident that there are tens of thousands of other folks whose glass shattered who just cleaned up, stuck on a Band-Aid and kept their traps shut.

              Is the risk big? Quantify big--is a 1:1,000,000 chance you'll lose an eye or the use of your right hand big? Is it a big risk to drive a Pinto or a Corvair? Only you can decide.


              1. re: kaleokahu

                Thanks. I didn't want to argue with others. I'd seen multiple posts and accounts of it exploding or shattering very loudly while in the oven or while in someone's hadns and with no misuse that I could discern. That sounds terrifying to me, especially when no other cooking I do poses that same type of risk. So part of me thinks that maybe this is the time to just stop baking with it and to make sure we get the items we'll need to replace my pyrex from our registry (or from our completion discount).

                1. re: Shkra11

                  >>no misuse that I could discern.

                  which is the key issue. when things expand, the expansion creates "stresses" - so long as the stress is distributed equally, there's likely nothing to happen.

                  however comma and so forth, should there be anything that becomes, in engineering terms, a "stress riser" then suddenly the stress becomes concentrated in a local area and eventually exceeds the material strength and 'it breaks'

                  the slightest chip is a stress riser. basically, damages you would never notice can create a situation - a damage + an 'overload' of thermal expansion/contraction - that will result in breakage.

                  the exploding thing is a bit over-done - but in my own personal experience having worked in the borosilicate glass industry and having glass fail in a hot oven - yes, 'exploding' is accurate - but over done.

                  1. re: PSRaT

                    Hi, PSRat:

                    What a sensible post. I'm familiar with stress risers from heat-treating tool steels.

                    Since you've worked in the borosilicate industry, let me ask you a few questions. One: The way these wares are made, are there no stresses inherent in the new, finished article at room temperature, i.e., are any/all stress forces (in normal use) exerted solely through heat expansion?

                    Two: In your opinion, does this "explosion" phenomenon *require* a chip/scratch/abrasion, or are there stress risers which could produce that result in a pristine pan in normal use?

                    Three: Given the differences in the rates of thermal expansion between borosilicate glass and soda lime glass, do you still believe the concern over exploding wares is overblown for the latter?

                    I'm not trying to score points here. Rather, you are the first poster I've read in these threads who seems to have actual, applicable industry experience, so I have something to learn. Thanks.


                    1. re: kaleokahu

                      most all glass products are annealed - similar to metal annealing - bring it to a temp where it is soft enough that stresses from forming can 'relax' / dissipate.

                      the rate of cooling is what makes for 'tempered safety glass' i.e. tiny pebbles vs. 'shards' i.e. a dropped coffee carafe - even though both have been annealed - the hot thingie is called a lehr in the glass industry - an annealing oven in the metal industry.

                      it is possible for expansion due rapid / uneven temp change to simply exceed the material strength - no physical damage required... pouring cold water into a hot glass casserole will do that trick - or setting a glass measuring cup on a gas burner for example.

                      in addition to physical damages, internal defects to the glass - air bubbles and/or 'seeds' - can act as stress risers.

                      there's no question that soda lime glass is not as good as borosilicate in thermal shock resistance. it is 'better' but the question is perhaps better asked is properly done soda lime glass 'good enough'?

                      the Pyrex move away from borosilicate is way in the past - so history would seem to support the theory that soda lime is 'good enough'

                  2. re: Shkra11

                    My aunt had a modern pyrex dish explode on her when taking a lasagna out of the oven. Needless to say they scooped it all up off the floor and ordered pizza that night.

                    I have a few pieces left but as I can afford to do so I am replacing my collection with Pillivuyt. I inherited a lot of new and vintage pyrex. The new has gone to goodwill and the vintage stayed with me.

                  3. re: kaleokahu

                    You are twisting the facts here. I have never had a bad experience with Pyrex, but I don't insinuate that Pyrex does not shatter with "any" frequency. It does, but the frequency is extremely low. The figure, whatever it is, does not depend on my experience alone but on the experiences of the many millions of Pyrex users who are not complaining about breakage.

                    I do, however, take exception to your characterization of "exploding" Pyrex. This is hyperbole. Tempered glass does not "explode," it "shatters." I'm still waiting for you to do the experiment of putting a hand grenade in your oven so we can all see the difference. How is that coming along?

                    1. re: GH1618

                      We don't know the frequency.

                      This is the difference. Some people relate instances of pyrex breaking suddenly into many small pieces while others tell of their pyrex suddenly breaking apart in a violent way with parts flying outward.

                      1. re: wekick

                        And some people just want to sue even though nothing happened, like someone I know. He is claiming a piece went in his eye to boot. Hard to get an accurate count.

                        1. re: coll

                          <Hard to get an accurate count.>

                          Yes, considering that most people aren't injured, or only slightly. Those people, people like me, have no reason to sue anyone. We just clean up the mess and move on, only relating our experiences in online forums.

                      2. re: GH1618

                        Hi, GH:

                        LOL, if you think a fragmentation grenade is the lowest common denominator of "exploding", you need a better dictionary. Were I to have an extra grenade, your suggested use would fall near the bottom of my target list, especially in my own oven. 'Explode' is the term most reporters of these mishaps use, with common reportage of glass shards flying dozens of feet, sticking in walls, etc. The saving grace of a large % of these explosions is that they were contained within an oven.

                        And actually, if you canvass the Pryrex threads here, you will find them replete with posts beginning with something like: "Well, this has never happened to me in 40 years. Must've abused the thing..." I'm not naming names, but...

                        Anyway, there were millions of non-exploding Pintos, too. Would you call that hazard a "fuel-air interaction"?


                        1. re: kaleokahu

                          I didn't say it was the lowest form of explosion.

                          An explosion involves a rapid expansion of gas creating a pressure or shock wave. It is the shock wave that causes the most damage. If, for example, your oven fills with gas and then ignites, the rapid expansion of combustion products can tear the oven door off its hinges. A shattering baking dish cannot do this. Stored energy in the tempered glass will convert to kinetic energy in the pieces of glass, so they will be scattered around, but there will be no expansion of the air, so no explosion. A shattering tempered glass dish does not make a small explosion — there is no explosion at all.

                          Only those with a weak case need to exaggerate.

                          1. re: GH1618

                            Hi, GH:

                            Like I said, you obviously need a better dictionary. The etymology may come as a shock, even without a wave or gas:

                            "explode (v.) 1530s, "to reject with scorn," from Latin explodere "drive out or off by clapping, hiss off, hoot off," originally theatrical, "to drive an actor off the stage by making noise," hence "drive out, reject" (a sense surviving in an exploded theory), from ex- "out" (see ex-) + plaudere "to clap the hands, applaud," of uncertain origin. Athenian audiences were highly demonstrative. clapping and shouting approval, stamping, hissing, and hooting for disapproval. The Romans seem to have done likewise.

                            At the close of the performance of a comedy in the Roman theatre one of the actors dismissed the audience, with a request for their approbation, the expression being usually plaudite, vos plaudite, or vos valete et plaudite. [William Smith, "A First Latin Reading Book," 1890]

                            In English, used it to mean "drive out with violence and sudden noise" (1650s), later, "go off with a loud noise" (American English, 1790); sense of "to burst with destructive force" is first recorded 1882; of population, 1959. Related: Exploded; exploding."

                            Or, for try this from the Oxford English Dictionary for American English:

                            "Burst or shatter violently and noisily as a result of rapid combustion, decomposition, excessive internal pressure, or other process, typically scattering fragments widely"

                            But I see why you need gas to make your narrow definition the only one...


                            1. re: kaleokahu

                              There are lots of common usages of most words which end up in dictionaries. I'm an engineer and when an engineering phenomenon is being discussed, I use engineering definitions, not layman's definitions, because they are more precise.

                              To clarify, it is not a gas which is the essential characteristic of an explosion. An explosion is a sudden release of a large amount of energy in a restricted space, which then expands outward with great force. It is the expanding energy wave that is the explosion, whatever the medium that carries it.

                              A shattering glass dish does not have this property. Energy is stored throughout the dish somewhat evenly, but with irregularities. Upon shattering, the pieces acquire kinetic energy randomly. Some pieces will fly away some distance, but others will not. The result is a lot of glass scattered about randomly, not a pattern of outward propulsion of the fragments. That is because there is no expanding pressure wave — none at all, hence no explosion. The difference is not merely technical. Because there is no pressure wave behind the fragments, they do not have the force do do much damage. There is no "explosive" force. I doubt whether a shattering baking dish in a closed oven could even force the door open, let alone tear it off.

                              The strength is a secondary aspect of an explosion, because it is somewhat subjective. A sneeze is a sudden release of energy in a restricted space, which then is propelled outward, but it is a small release of energy incapable of causing serious damage. No one would call a sneeze an "explosion."

                              The only reason for using the term to apply to a shattering glass dish is to make it sound more serious than it actually is. The motivation seems to be not clarify what is actually happening, so as to assess the true risk, but to exaggerate the risk, to raise alarms. That's not how I approach problems.

                              1. re: GH1618

                                Hi, Again, GH:

                                "Explode: Burst or shatter violently and noisily as a result of rapid combustion, decomposition, excessive internal pressure, or other process, typically scattering fragments widely."

                                There you have it--exactly. You can take your case to the OED Editorial Board.

                                "To clarify, it is not a gas which is the essential characteristic of an explosion."

                                Oh no? Who wrote this: "An explosion involves a rapid expansion of gas"?

                                "That's not how I approach problems."

                                Yes, apparently you define problems away, ignoring common usage--including your own.


                                1. re: GH1618

                                  obviously you've not experienced a glass vessel energetically disassembling itself.

                                  there's this loud noise, then pieces of glass go flying everywhere with secondary noise as they strike other things.

                                  it is a sudden release of energy. if it's in the oven it is a sudden release of energy in a confined space.

                                  I question how many engineers would describe the detonation of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima as "in a confined space" - but I think most all them would consider it an explosion.

                                  the rapid physical dis-assembly of a glass vessel most certainly does produce a shock wave in the surrounding air.

                                  1. re: PSRaT

                                    <I question how many engineers would describe the detonation of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima as "in a confined space">

                                    I think you misunderstood GH or did not pay attention. What he wrote was that " An explosion is a sudden release of a large amount of energy in a restricted space, which then expands outward with great force.". This is correct.

                                    In other words, the initial energy is built within a confined space, and then finally released into the greater space. Hiroshima is the greater space. The warhead is the confined space.

                                    < if it's in the oven it is a sudden release of energy in a confined space.>

                                    Actually no. The oven is the greater space, not the confined space. The glass itself is the confined space (if you want to argue that the glass exploded). If the oven is the confined space, then you are in big trouble. That means the explosion started from the oven and exploded into your entire house.

                                    If Hiroshima is the confined space, then we are talking about a planetary explosion.

                                    1. re: PSRaT

                                      I certainly have. Awhile back I dropped a glass lid on my concrete floor and it shattered into hundreds of pieces which were scattered around the kitchen. I was still finding pieces a few months later which had been flung under something. It doesn't matter how the fracture starts, the shattering process is the same. It is a release of energy stored in the material in the form of locked-in stress. It is not an explosion, and although the energy released is probably greater than a sneeze, it is nevertheless small. It is not a "bomb" as some have described it in earlier threads.

                                      The detonation of an atomic bomb is certainly an explosion. It is a sudden release of a large amount of energy in a restricted space which causes the energy to expand outward, creating a shock wave. In this case, a rather extreme one. I don't know why you would think thete would be any controversy about that. There is no comparable blast effect from a piece of shattering glass, even on a very small scale. You are simply wrong about that. The sound of the fracture is a pressure wave, but not an explosive one. Nobody calls a sudden sound an "explision." The pieces of glass that are found a few feet from the origin of the incident were not propelled there by an explosive force (an expanding pressure wave) but merely by the kinetic energy imparted to them at the instant of fracture. This energy is small and very quickly dissipated.

                                      1. re: GH1618

                                        when temperature gradients cause a strain resulting in stress exceeding material strength you get a kaboom. a little kaboom, a bigger kaboom.

                                        dropping a glass lid on concrete is not the same failure mechanism as having internal stresses exceed material strength.

                                        when a balloon bursts, is that an explosion?
                                        what about "explosive decompression"?

                                        you do not want to be around a chunk of glass that disassembles itself from heat strain. there are shields to prevent workers from being injured by flying glass shards.

                                        as to the controversy over confined space, how does one explain the boom from a stick of dynamite or a lump of C4 - the paper wrapper does not provide much confinement and naked C4 does a nice boom all by itself. and a bag of fertilizer and some diesel makes a nice open air boom - you don't have to put it in a 55 gal drum.

                                        low order explosives like gunpowder burn fast. if they are contained the pressure builds up and the bullet goes out the little hole. if the 'barrel' is not strong enough - or blocked - it 'blows up' - which of these is an 'explosion'?

                                    2. re: GH1618

                                      Hi GH1618,

                                      <I use engineering definitions, not layman's definitions, because they are more precise.>

                                      Can we agree that most people are not engineers, and when we (laypeople) say "explode" we're talking about what the result looks like to us? See, we don't know that "The result is a lot of glass scattered about randomly, not a pattern of outward propulsion of the fragments." What we DO know is that there was a muffled pop or explosive-sounding noise (as we understand sound), followed by an ungodly nasty mess ALL OVER THE PLACE! That's what we (laypeople) see.

                                      <The only reason for using the term to apply to a shattering glass dish is to make it sound more serious than it actually is.>

                                      Given the above, isn't it just a little bit possible that we (laypeople) aren't trying to sensationalize the event, but rather describe what we see?

                                      So maybe you could give us the benefit of the doubt? With the understanding that we're not engineers, of course. I won't even mind if you laugh your ass off because I don't know what an explosion is.


                                      1. re: DuffyH

                                        I see your point, and it has merit, but the reason I object to the usage is because there is a substantive difference in the effects. In a true explosion, there is a force from the expanding shock wave which can propel debris, and this is much stronger and more dangerous than the forces from the energy released in shattering glass. So, for example, if a glass jar containing a firecracker is at your feet, and the firecracker explodes, the force of the explosion can easily drive glass fragments into your face. But if you merely drop an empty jar at your feet, it is unlikely that any fragment will have enough energy to rise a few feet against gravity to strike you in the face. When I dropped the glass lid to my iron skillet (alas, difficult to replace!) I had a big mess, with fragments strewn about the kitchen, but was in no danger from flying glass because of the relatively low energy of the event.

                                        Granted, if your face were close to a glass dish as it shattered, you could be struck in the face with a fragment. I don't doubt that there are a few injuries that have occurred. Considering that many millions of pieces of glass ovenware have been produced and been used countless times, it seems to me that the risk is small compared to other risks in the kitchen, so I don't see why it should be exaggerated out of proportion to the actual risk. For comparison, cuts from knives are a real risk in the kitchen. We have people here advocating the use of the sharpest Japanese knives, but there doesn't seem to be any lobby group against sharp knives. The risk of burns is probably even greater than that of cuts from knives, but people advocate high heat for wok cooking or searing steaks without objection.

                                        I advocate careful procedure in the use of glass ovenware instead of giving it up altogether. Here are some of my safety rules:

                                        1. Keep small children out of the kitchen. This is a general rule, not just pertaining to the use of glass ovenware.

                                        2. Handle glass ovenware carefully, even when cold, to avoid mechanical shock.

                                        3. A glass baking dish is not a roasting pan!

                                        4. When done baking, allow the dish to cool partially in the oven before handling.

                                        5. Set the hot dish on potholders which are completely dry.

                                        I may add a rule and start wearing my safety glasses when cooking with my Pyrex and Anchor ovenware. It costs nothing for that extra margin of safety.

                                        1. re: GH1618

                                          Each person must look at risk vs benefit and decide for themselves. My grandkids are in the kitchen with me learning to cook. My main concern is breakage from thermal shock. We can easily use other materials to eliminate this problem not just decrease the risk. Even if you follow your rules, you still have the chip/flaw in the glass issue.

                                          1. re: GH1618

                                            Hi GH,

                                            < I don't see why it should be exaggerated out of proportion to the actual risk.>

                                            My point is that people who are not engineers would use the words "explode" and "shatter" interchangeably, seeing no practical difference between them, when it comes to breaking bakeware. This will be especially true when food is found to be coating the walls of an oven. It looks like something blew up in there. So, explosion. We are not exaggerating, we're describing as best we can.

                                            Because ceramic produces comparable baked foods with less risk of shattering, I've quit using glass in my oven. All it took was one big sharp mess to make a believer of me.

                              2. re: kaleokahu

                                Coincidental aside: I actually saw a pinto in a TJ's parking lot yesterday. Carry on.

                                1. re: Susangria

                                  I drove a Pinto station wagon for years.

                                  It was the most popular car in the gang because it would carry coolers, chairs, boom boxes, and 4 girls to the beach.

                                  (the wagons were never the issue, but you get where I'm going)

                                  1. re: Susangria

                                    In the '70s, drove a Pinto for a decade, and I lived to tell the tale. Also use Pyrex, going on 40 years. Guess I'm a risk-taker.

                            2. Add them to your registry, you will love them! Make sure you ask for the ones with the matching lids, great for taking food places and storing and stacking and etc.

                              I love my pyrex. And I shattered my beloved late grandmother's pan by putting a half frozen pork tenderloin in in, putting the room temp pan with the semi-frozen pork on my slightly preheated oven on the slightly preheated pizza stone. About 5 minutes later sounded like a gun shot in the oven, and the pyrex split very neatly in half. Oops.

                              Now I'm more careful, but I still use it. And the broken pieces aren't recyclable if you were wondering. . .

                              1. " I have zero interest in having my meal lost, cleaning up glass (especially in the oven), or getting injured by some flying shard. "
                                You have answered your own question. The new stuff is higher risk for thermal shock breakage because the soda lime glass can only tolerate about a 100F difference with in the piece of glass. They also tend to have large handles. When you take it out of the oven at 350F to a room that is 72F and the handles sticking out that would cool quickly,as they say now --BOOM.

                                I really like the way Pyrex bakes and haven't had trouble with it but all of mine is the older borosilicate type(clear, almost colorless) which tolerates about a 300F differential. After reading and learning as much as I could, you can reduce your risk by using the older stuff and using it in ways that would not be as risky, but you still have bruising and chipping referred to above that you can't see. Each time you use a piece, that risk grows. I don't want to take a chance on losing what I am cooking let alone possibly getting cut on broken glass, whether it is from a loud "explosion" or simple crack. I have replaced every thing that I can over the last few months with pyroceram, also known as Corningware. It tolerates about 800-900F differential. Unfortunately World Kitchens, the same company that bought the "pyrex" name also bought the "corningware" name and changed it from pyroceram to stoneware. You can only really get the baking pieces on the secondary market. They have reintroduced a few small pieces in the pyroceram, calling it "Stovetop" but they are pricey and I don't like it on the stove. I have been fortunate to find pristine pyroceram bakeware very inexpensively mostly at antique malls and thrift shops but of course that would not be able to go on your registry. There are many other choices. I have found quite a bit of pillivuyt and apilco bakeware at thrift stores but you can put that on your registry.
                                My niece just got a whole big set of pyrex bakeware at a shower.I think that her mother will have her take it back.


                                18 Replies
                                1. re: wekick

                                  Yet another eminently sensible post. That vapid heart symbol doesn't do it justice.

                                  FWIW, the last time I checked, there is a New England company still doing real borosilicate, and one in Poland making bakeware in it.

                                  1. re: wekick

                                    Like wekick, I'm phasing out all my glass baking dishes, replacing them with vintage Corningware, along with Emile Henry and some LeCreuset baking dishes. I like the EH because it is specifically rated to go from freezer to a HOT oven, which can be handy at times. But mostly I'm looking for vintage corning ware, because it's lightweight, durable and super cheap, when I can score it at the local Goodwill.

                                    In the meantime, I use my glass bakeware for other things, or briefly in the microwave, where accidents won't be as nasty as in my main oven.

                                    If you're interested in adding some Corningware to your registry, it is being made again.



                                    1. re: DuffyH

                                      One thing to keep in mind, in buying vintage corningware, is that the original white pieces, with the blue cornflower design, will become VERY hot if used in the microwave. The ceramic composition must include a metal.

                                      1. re: greygarious

                                        Thanks, Grey.

                                        I'll keep that in mind. So far I've only acquired French White and the lack of handles guarantees I use potholes when handling them.


                                        1. re: greygarious

                                          It doesn't have to contain a metal. Any molecule with a dipole moment will absorb energy from microwaves. Water is heated by microwaves, but water is not a metal.

                                          1. re: GH1618

                                            Not even sure if metal will really heat up. I think metal reflect microwave actually, which is why the walls of a microwave oven made of metal.

                                            Yes, for the dipole moment. Rotational energy.

                                        2. re: DuffyH

                                          I've added some le creuset and pilluyvit. For the pyroceram corningware, it looks like my most common type of dish (rectangular and large, not square) is not common for them to make or always out of stock. I'll look into EH. For some reason, I never go freezer to oven.

                                          1. re: Shkra11

                                            If you don't go freezer to oven, also consider LeCreuset stoneware. Like the EH, it's very durable, cleans up in a snap and comes in lots of sizes.

                                        3. re: wekick

                                          Thanks. I'm not dedicated enough right now to track all of this older stuff down- especially when ppl are very graciously trying to buy us whatever we need.

                                          For pyrex- I have 3 large rectangular pieces (2 of those have plastic fitted lids, one we registered for, received and already used, so no returning it probably), 2 smaller rectangular dishes w plastic fitted lids, and 3 pie plates. I'm at least glad that none of it was pricey.

                                          For registry purposes, is there some downside to listing ECI to replace my pyrex rectangular pieces? Should I list this flame line of corningware and then not use it on the stove? I've looked around a bit but I'm having a hard time understanding (besides price) what would make me choose ceramic or stoneware over ECI for rectangular baking dishes. I'm guessing that probably neither has something like the great plastic lids that pyrex has that make transporting food so much easier, so back to foil it would be?

                                          Also for pies and quiches- glass gives a great crust- would ceramic, stoneware, or ECI be most likely to give a nice crisp crust? I'm guessing that ECI is not best for pies as it would continue cooking them for longer than I or my recipes intended, so I'd need to re calibrate everything? I do have some non-glass, non-metal pie dishes that work well but no clue what they are between stoneware or ceramic.

                                          For now, I'd still consider using my pyrex for non-baking dishes- like layering banana pudding in there. Should I avoid it even for that?

                                          1. re: Shkra11

                                            I love crusts baked in Pyrex. There's no equal as far as I'm concerned (with the bonus that I can SEE if my crust is done!)

                                            I bake in Pyrex regularly, and am going to have to see a lot more hard data of a lot more issues to give it up.

                                            you absolutely can continue to use Pyrex for non-baked dishes. If it's not changing temperature, your only risk is dropping it.

                                            1. re: sunshine842

                                              I continue to use pyrex pie pans and casseroles but I put them onto a room temp metal baking pan/sheet before putting them into the oven, and do not remove them from that sheet until they are out of the oven and have had a few minutes to cool a little. Then onto a folded dry towel or cloth pad. I've shattered two pyrex pieces over the course of 40 yrs cooking. Both out of ignorance of their limits. But I completely believe that spontaneous failures occur and at least having a pan beneath the pyrex would contain the food so it doesn't burn onto the oven floor.

                                              1. re: greygarious

                                                I usually put fruit pies on a baking sheet because it catches the inevitable ooze...

                                            2. re: Shkra11

                                              I'm also fine skipping stoneware and ceramic and getting some ECI and some porcelain to replace my pyrex. I'm reading up on pillivuyt, apilco, and revol now.

                                              1. re: Shkra11

                                                I really like porcelain for it's versatility and beauty. It has an elegance that can be hard to match. There's a nice little bonus, too. if it's got handles, those don't heat up in the microwave, making it a joy for reheating all kinds of things.

                                                1. re: Shkra11

                                                  Hi Shkra,

                                                  Aside from weight and the carryover cooking you mentioned, I see no drawback to using ECI in place of glass bakeware. And one of our most famous baked foods is cornbread baked in a cast iron skillet. Some recipes will need to be adjusted, but once you've noted those changes, you'll be good to go. I like thin metal baking pans (mine are from USA Pans) for some baked goods, like brownies, where carryover cooking from stoneware or ECI can really overcook the edges. But for casseroles and such, heavy stoneware or cast iron will work very well. Additionally, they're very pretty on the table or buffet. Much better looking than glass.

                                                  It can be hard to find non-glass baking dishes that come with plastic lids, but it can be found. You can buy stretch lids, but they have mixed reviews, no more than about 70% positive.

                                                  There's no reason at all for you to discontinue using glass for non-baking applications. It's thermal shock that causes unexpected shattering, normally. But when it comes to non-thermal breaking, well, anything may break when dropped, even cast iron.

                                                  1. re: DuffyH

                                                    Breakage characteristics (when dropped) vary considerably though. I have some Corelle cups which are more resistant to breakage from mechanical shock than glass, but when they do break they go into large shards with razor-sharp edges. In a broken state, these are much more dangerous than the smaller pieces that result from breaking annealed soda-lime glass. I expect other ceramics would be similar.

                                                    1. re: GH1618

                                                      this is actually a very good point. I had once broke a crystal glass in a hotel. I was embarrassed and started to pick up the broken pieces, and then realize how extremely sharp they are. Nothing like the typical glass pieces we typical see in our kitchens. I am think I must have spoiled by modern glasses which break into safer and round edge glass pieces. Anyway, I picked up as much as I can, but finally call the hotel and ask them to clean up the rest with the proper tools.

                                              2. The original comment has been removed