Cookware at Costco
Me Again
My SO is talking about buying me cookware for Xmas. He asked what I
want. I was in CostCo the other day and they had several sets. One set
that caught my eye was the "Kirkland" set, particularly because it has
glass lids (which I like).
It's a 10 piece set for ~$150 (3 lids, 4 pans and 3 pots or 3 pans and 4
pots) that seems reasonably nice. I like the configuration of the
pieces, a nice medium/large sized stock pot (I have a huge, restaurant
grade stock pot for when I really want to cook up a big batch of
something) that holds a pasta insert (I cook pasta several times a
month), and a medium sized pot with a steamer insert (I steam veggies at
most meals), and several frying pans, with glass lids with metal rims
that fit both the pots and the pans. I'm fairly certain that they use a
non-stick finish on the pots and frying pans.
I'm not a gourmet cook and don't want to spend many hundreds of
dollars, but I want better than "discount drug store" quality
cookware. What are the risks of buying CostCo grade cookware?
TIA
jc
Hipsters
planet as they know it?
Generally speaking, Kirkland buys other company products and slaps their label
on it. Their jelly beans, for example, are Jelly Belly jelly beans.
Are they rejects? Overflow? Or just different way of marketing and packaging
the same stuff?
Anyway, what is this cookware when stripped of this Kirkland label? I'll try
and find out tomorrow.
Karen
Greg
>
> What is it with Kirkland, anyway? Are they trying to rule the world? Or their
> planet as they know it?
Kinda makes you wonder about those Seattle-based operations, doesn't it?
Airplanes, coffee, discount warehouse stores, and then, ohhh, what's the
name of that computer guy up there?
-Greg
Aahz Maruch
Not to mention on-line bookstores.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> -=> http://www.rahul.net/aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
"Characters exist to suffer, you know. An author needs a little sadism
in her makeup." --Brenda Clough
Aahz Maruch
>
>I'm not a gourmet cook and don't want to spend many hundreds of
>dollars, but I want better than "discount drug store" quality
>cookware. What are the risks of buying CostCo grade cookware?
I don't know about the cookware specifically, but I've rarely been
disappointed by anything I bought at CostCo. One particularly nice
purchase was a pair of rolling carry-ons for $100 each; they're better
than ones costing three times as much (judging from the brand names
plastered on the ones I see in the airport).
CostCo had another set for half the price, but it was obviously cheap;
they're pretty good about not playing games with price vs. quality.
NOSPAM
>What is it with Kirkland, anyway? Are they trying to rule the world? Or their
>planet as they know it?
I think they are too close to Microsoft ;-)
It rubbs off.
Valerie
I thought your new roomate had a whole big set?
>It's a 10 piece set for ~$150 (3 lids, 4 pans and 3 pots or 3 pans and 4
>pots) that seems reasonably nice. I like the configuration of the
>pieces, a nice medium/large sized stock pot (I have a huge, restaurant
>grade stock pot for when I really want to cook up a big batch of
>something) that holds a pasta insert (I cook pasta several times a
>month), and a medium sized pot with a steamer insert (I steam veggies at
>most meals), and several frying pans, with glass lids with metal rims
>that fit both the pots and the pans. I'm fairly certain that they use a
>non-stick finish on the pots and frying pans.
I have never found a pasta insert to be useful. A friend of mine had one
of those, and he had to put so much water in the pot that cooking for one
became a huge chore. Perhaps the setup you speak of is more sensible
than the one he had.
I'm not a non-stick fan, but I haven't tried them since they first came
out. Apparently, the technology has improved greatly.
>I'm not a gourmet cook and don't want to spend many hundreds of
>dollars, but I want better than "discount drug store" quality
>cookware. What are the risks of buying CostCo grade cookware?
I don't know that it's necessarily a question of "CostCo grade". You
never struck me as the kind of person to put up with poor quality items,
so if you keep shopping there, you must like the quality. If you want
something fancier, though, you might look at the after Xmas sales. He
can put an envelope on tree, right? <GRIN!>
Val
Mitch Sako
I think they have gone out of their way to OEM all Kirkland branded
products from reputable and high quality manufacturers. It's a
common ploy for retailers to sell house branded items because
of higher profit margin. It does not mean inferior, (i.e. Kenmore).
I have not inspected this cookware (which you should very well
do prior to purchase), but I would be confident that the buyers
(staff purchasing agents at Costco) have chosen a reputable and
reliable source for their product.
They would be shooting themselves in the foot if they ever
offered an inferior product.
Me Again (mag...@rahul.net) wrote:
: Has anyone bought the "Kirkland" cookware at CostCo?
: My SO is talking about buying me cookware for Xmas. He asked what I
: want. I was in CostCo the other day and they had several sets. One set
: that caught my eye was the "Kirkland" set, particularly because it has
: glass lids (which I like).
: It's a 10 piece set for ~$150 (3 lids, 4 pans and 3 pots or 3 pans and 4
: pots) that seems reasonably nice. I like the configuration of the
: pieces, a nice medium/large sized stock pot (I have a huge, restaurant
: grade stock pot for when I really want to cook up a big batch of
: something) that holds a pasta insert (I cook pasta several times a
: month), and a medium sized pot with a steamer insert (I steam veggies at
: most meals), and several frying pans, with glass lids with metal rims
: that fit both the pots and the pans. I'm fairly certain that they use a
: non-stick finish on the pots and frying pans.
: I'm not a gourmet cook and don't want to spend many hundreds of
: dollars, but I want better than "discount drug store" quality
: cookware. What are the risks of buying CostCo grade cookware?
: TIA
: jc
--
------------------------------------------------------
"There are no stupid questions, just stupid people who
ask questions." - Chris Berman
John Eisenman
at Costco, but it is readily available in the area. I've been quite happy
with the Ultra line of T-Fal products. It was my first step up from junk
cookware, and as such a very noticable difference. But, the cost is a good
deal less than the fancy brands. (I'm 90% certain that the line I bought
is called Ultra -- when I shopped T-Fal had 4 varieties, and I bought the
second from top. The main feature of this line was a pattern of bumps
on the inside surface of each pan.)
BTW, there are cookware faqs on the net. I read one a couple of years ago
when I bought my set. Have a look. The major issues are non-stick vs.
traditional surfaces and set vs. individual pieces. I went with the non-stick,
but am careful not to turn up the heat with nothing in the pot. I also
went with a set, but have supplemented it with individual pieces from
various lines.
-j
In article <3670D25F...@rahul.net>, Me Again <mag...@rahul.net> writes:
|> Has anyone bought the "Kirkland" cookware at CostCo?
|>
|> My SO is talking about buying me cookware for Xmas. He asked what I
|> want. I was in CostCo the other day and they had several sets. One set
|> that caught my eye was the "Kirkland" set, particularly because it has
|> glass lids (which I like).
|>
|> It's a 10 piece set for ~$150 (3 lids, 4 pans and 3 pots or 3 pans and 4
|> pots) that seems reasonably nice. I like the configuration of the
|> pieces, a nice medium/large sized stock pot (I have a huge, restaurant
|> grade stock pot for when I really want to cook up a big batch of
|> something) that holds a pasta insert (I cook pasta several times a
|> month), and a medium sized pot with a steamer insert (I steam veggies at
|> most meals), and several frying pans, with glass lids with metal rims
|> that fit both the pots and the pans. I'm fairly certain that they use a
|> non-stick finish on the pots and frying pans.
|>
|> I'm not a gourmet cook and don't want to spend many hundreds of
|> dollars, but I want better than "discount drug store" quality
|> cookware. What are the risks of buying CostCo grade cookware?
|> |> TIA
|>
|> jc
--
John Eisenman (ji...@sgi.com)
Silicon Graphics Computer Systems
MS 40U-553
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
P.O. Box 7311
Mt. View, CA 94039-7311
Me Again
> I don't know about the cookware specifically, but I've rarely been
> disappointed by anything I bought at CostCo. One particularly nice
> purchase was a pair of rolling carry-ons for $100 each; they're better
> than ones costing three times as much (judging from the brand names
> plastered on the ones I see in the airport).
And that's exactly why I am considering their cookware. I bought (as a
gift) a Kirkland labeled luggage set with their "passport coupon" this
summer, a 5 piece set for $99. He has used the carry-on sized roll-on
suitcase for several conference trips and *really* likes it. The
largest piece is so big that it isn't likely to get used for anything
less than a vacation or cruise or something like that where you want to
pack the whole closet. The toiletries organizer is well designed and
quite useful. The duffle bag is great for gym stuff. All this for ~$20
more than the single carry-on roll on with a "name brand".
I like shopping at CostCo. :-)
jc
David Hatunen
>"Kirkland" is their house brand. It does not mean lower quality.
>I think they have gone out of their way to OEM all Kirkland
>branded products from reputable and high quality manufacturers.
>It's a common ploy for retailers to sell house branded items
>because of higher profit margin. It does not mean inferior, (i.e.
>Kenmore).
>
>I have not inspected this cookware (which you should very well
>do prior to purchase), but I would be confident that the buyers
>(staff purchasing agents at Costco) have chosen a reputable and
>reliable source for their product.
Fortunately, Costco has a 30-day return no-questions-asked policy.
And according to Consumer's Reports it's more than 30 days, but
they don't like to let people know it.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
******* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *******
Young
> I have never found a pasta insert to be useful. A friend of mine had one
> of those, and he had to put so much water in the pot that cooking for one
> became a huge chore. Perhaps the setup you speak of is more sensible
> than the one he had.
Huh. I was thinking of looking into whether they made one for my
4 qt All Clad. I thought the deal with pasta inserts is that they
lined the pot with a colander that you'd lift out ... that's not true?
>
> I'm not a non-stick fan, but I haven't tried them since they first came
> out. Apparently, the technology has improved greatly.
I agree, the first non-stick pans were a complete waste of time and
money, but the newer ones (I got two saute pans from Costco) are tough.
nancy
Valerie
Young <qwe...@mail.monmouth.com> wrote:
>Valerie wrote:
>
>> I have never found a pasta insert to be useful. A friend of mine had one
>> of those, and he had to put so much water in the pot that cooking for one
>> became a huge chore. Perhaps the setup you speak of is more sensible
>> than the one he had.
>
>Huh. I was thinking of looking into whether they made one for my
>4 qt All Clad. I thought the deal with pasta inserts is that they
>lined the pot with a colander that you'd lift out ... that's not true?
It's true, yes, as far as that goes. You can get a nasty steam burn
trying it, though! Further, when I'm in a hurry and cooking for myself,
I don't use 4 - 6 qts of water as the pasta package says to. I use just
enough to get the job done. The insert sits an inch or more above the
bottom of the pan. In a large pan, this is a LOT of extra water to heat
up. It just takes too long when I have to get dinner fast between work
and dance.
YMMV,
Val
GeneK
won't use that pot, most people who live alone or with just
one other person end up using a smaller pot and the pasta insert
never gets used...
Gene
Geoff Miller
ms...@netcom.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
> It's a common ploy for retailers to sell house branded items
> because of higher profit margin. It does not mean inferior,
> (i.e. Kenmore).
Since when are Kenore products inferior? I'd always heard that
Sears OEM'd Kenmore stuff from reputable manufacturers. For
example, I understand that their washing machines are actually
made by Whirlpool.
Anyway, getting back to cookware, whatever became of Magnalite?
I bought a set of their stuff several years ago, and then added
to it piecemeal for a few years after that. But it's been ages
since I've noticed any of their products displayed anywhere.
Were they bought out by somebody else?
Geoff
--
"The Williams house was halfway up Castle View. Keeton piloted
the Cadillac into the driveway and parked behind the woman's
car. It was foreign, of course. A Volvo. Keeton guessed
she was a closet Communist, a lesbo, or both."--Stephen King
Young
The problem is that, while I'm not weak, I am only 5'2" and the
All Clad pot is HEAVY once full of water and pasta. It doesn't have
a helper handle, which means I have to carry it full of boiling water to
the sink and struggle to dump it into a colander, all the time at almost
shoulder level. Meaning, it's a bear to tip over at that height and
with one narrow handle that doesn't give you much grip to hang onto that
baby.
It would be a major improvement if I could just lift out an insert that
had two handles and left the water behind.
nancy
Andrew Lee
: Has anyone bought the "Kirkland" cookware at CostCo?
I recently bought a Kirkland roasting pan for my T-day turkey. The
quality is very good and the price was right when compared to Calphalon,
Analon, Circulon, etc. at Macys. Costco also has good prices on
Circulon Pro and Cuisinart. Consumer Reports rated the Cuisinart very
highly.
--
Andrew Lee
al...@cup.hp.com
Mike Lipsie
> Valerie wrote:
>
> > I have never found a pasta insert to be useful. A friend of mine had one
> > of those, and he had to put so much water in the pot that cooking for one
> > became a huge chore. Perhaps the setup you speak of is more sensible
> > than the one he had.
>
> Huh. I was thinking of looking into whether they made one for my
> 4 qt All Clad. I thought the deal with pasta inserts is that they
> lined the pot with a colander that you'd lift out ... that's not true?
Exactly correct.
And that is the problem. First, you need to add more water with the
insert than without to compensate for the "shorter" pot that you are dealing
with. Second, when you lift the insert it is a real pain to avoid spill water
everywhere.
I would rather use a colander.
--
Mike_...@sdsi.com (work)
mi...@dosbears.com (home)
Me Again
>
> In article <3670D25F...@rahul.net>, Me Again <mag...@rahul.net> wrote:
> >
> >My SO is talking about buying me cookware for Xmas.
>
She doesn't have a whole set, but the few pieces she does have are quite
nice. She has an interesting 4 piece skillet set (Circulon high-low
system) where the same lid fits all 3 skillets, a large wok/skillet, a
medium omelet sized skillet and a small skillet with grill ripples in it
(for cooking burgers?). I used the wok/skillet to cook 12 chicken
thighs last night and it's a real nice pan!
But we are still lacking some of the basic pieces, mainly pots and
specifically pasta and steamer insert pieces.
I can accomodate this 10 piece set in the kitchen if I get it.
> >It's a 10 piece set for ~$150 (3 lids, 4 pans and 3 pots or 3 pans and 4
> >pots) that seems reasonably nice. I like the configuration of the
> >pieces, a nice medium/large sized stock pot (I have a huge, restaurant
> >grade stock pot for when I really want to cook up a big batch of
> >something) that holds a pasta insert (I cook pasta several times a
> >month), and a medium sized pot with a steamer insert (I steam veggies at
> >most meals), and several frying pans, with glass lids with metal rims
> >that fit both the pots and the pans. I'm fairly certain that they use a
> >non-stick finish on the pots and frying pans.
>
> I have never found a pasta insert to be useful. A friend of mine had one
> of those, and he had to put so much water in the pot that cooking for one
> became a huge chore. Perhaps the setup you speak of is more sensible
> than the one he had.
It depends on how deeply the insert goes into the pot. My prior
room-mate's set had an insert that went almost to the bottom of the pot
so you don't really need any more water than you use when you use a
plain pot, and that's how the Kirkland set is designed.
Some sets have a combo unit where the insert stops about 2 inches above
the bottom of the pot, that can be used either to steam (if you only put
a little water in the pot) or as a pasta insert if you really fill the
pot up. Maybe that's the sort of pot/insert your friend has.
> I'm not a non-stick fan, but I haven't tried them since they first came
> out. Apparently, the technology has improved greatly.
I love them. Helps to cut down on caleries!
> >I'm not a gourmet cook and don't want to spend many hundreds of
> >dollars, but I want better than "discount drug store" quality
> >cookware. What are the risks of buying CostCo grade cookware?
>
> I don't know that it's necessarily a question of "CostCo grade". You
> never struck me as the kind of person to put up with poor quality items,
> so if you keep shopping there, you must like the quality.
There are also some things I have bought there and returned (a recent
baseboard heater unit purchase went back a week later because it didn't
come anywhere close to keeping an even temperature). I don't like the
idea of asking for a specific item for Xmas and then finding I don't
really like it all that much and returning it. Also, it's a bit harder
to return something like cookware after you have tried it since you
might have scratched it and so on. So I wanted to get some input before
I decided.
> If you want
> something fancier,
My question is, is there any real difference for the ordinary cook
between the Kirkland cookware and the "fancier" stuff? I'm not a
gourmet cook, I don't need a $200 skillet. Why would I want something
fancier? Do I need something fancier? What am I giving up by getting a
mid-range cookware set rather than buying something fancier at one of
the cookware stores?
What are the tradeoffs?
>though, you might look at the after Xmas sales. He
> can put an envelope on tree, right? <GRIN!>
I like having a gift-wrapped box to tear open. :-) Even when I already
know what's inside, the fact that the other person went to the effort to
obtain it, wrap it, deliver it etc is part of the "you matter to me"
thing that makes getting a gift an enjoyable event.
jc
Andrew Lee
: Anyway, getting back to cookware, whatever became of Magnalite?
They're still around, although their distribution channel is extremely
limited. For those in the Bay area, you can still purchase Magnalite at
the Chicago Cutlery outlet in Gilroy. You can find a Le Cruset outlet
there as well.
--
Andrew Lee
al...@cup.hp.com
David M. Bugg
John Eisenman wrote in message <74rsen$2f...@fido.engr.sgi.com>...
>In that price range, I like the T-Fal line. I have no idea if it is sold
>at Costco, but it is readily available in the area. I've been quite happy
>with the Ultra line of T-Fal products. It was my first step up from junk
>cookware, and as such a very noticable difference. But, the cost is a good
>deal less than the fancy brands. (I'm 90% certain that the line I bought
>is called Ultra -- when I shopped T-Fal had 4 varieties, and I bought the
>second from top. The main feature of this line was a pattern of bumps
>on the inside surface of each pan.)
The Costco here has been selling the Wear-Ever Pro line which uses the very
durable Ultra non-stick coating. It has impressed me with its durability.
The pans have performed on a par with the top tier stuff.
Cyndi Norman
> I'm not a gourmet cook and don't want to spend many hundreds of
> dollars, but I want better than "discount drug store" quality
> cookware. What are the risks of buying CostCo grade cookware?
Pick up the latest copies of their newsletter. They're bragging on and on
about the cookware (a handful of sets/types). Talking about this great buy
they made...how it's higher quality than they've ever had before, low
prices, etc. I love to cook but really don't know much about cookware
beyond knowing what I like to use. But at least you can get all the specs
and then look them up in a magazine or website that does consumer report
style testing on serious cookware.
Cyndi
_______________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman
something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cy...@consultclarity.com
http://www.consultclarity.com/
_________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/
TeresaD
downsides to it. While the handles are designed to stay cool when cooking,
the handles on the lids get hot - so you have to use a potholder to take the
lid off. And the glass lids can be kind of hard to keep clean - they have a
little crack between the glass and the metal rim, and the ridge in the metal
around the outside of the lid. I've had no trouble though, if you just
clean them very well every time. Mine are as good as new and a year old
this Christmas. I'm throwing out the Calphalon because this cookware suits
my needs so much better.
Teresa
Aahz Maruch wrote in message ...
>In article <3670D25F...@rahul.net>, Me Again <mag...@rahul.net>
wrote:
>>
>>I'm not a gourmet cook and don't want to spend many hundreds of
>>dollars, but I want better than "discount drug store" quality
>>cookware. What are the risks of buying CostCo grade cookware?
>
>I don't know about the cookware specifically, but I've rarely been
>disappointed by anything I bought at CostCo. One particularly nice
>purchase was a pair of rolling carry-ons for $100 each; they're better
>than ones costing three times as much (judging from the brand names
>plastered on the ones I see in the airport).
>
Valerie
>Valerie wrote:
>>
>>though, you might look at the after Xmas sales. He
>> can put an envelope on tree, right? <GRIN!>
>
>I like having a gift-wrapped box to tear open. :-) Even when I already
>know what's inside, the fact that the other person went to the effort to
>obtain it, wrap it, deliver it etc is part of the "you matter to me"
>thing that makes getting a gift an enjoyable event.
Mmmmmmm... yes, I can understand that!
Val
Valerie
>
>And that's exactly why I am considering their cookware. I bought (as a
>gift) a Kirkland labeled luggage set with their "passport coupon" this
>summer, a 5 piece set for $99. He has used the carry-on sized roll-on
>suitcase for several conference trips and *really* likes it. The
>largest piece is so big that it isn't likely to get used for anything
>less than a vacation or cruise or something like that where you want to
>pack the whole closet.
Oh, you mean like a dance convention? <GRIN!>
Val, beginning to plan for Dance Camp...
Michelle Dick
>>It's a 10 piece set for ~$150 (3 lids, 4 pans and 3 pots or 3 pans and 4
>>pots) that seems reasonably nice.
It's a decent set. Awhile back, I got the Calphalon set from Costco.
Cost a little more, but if you compare it side by side with Kirkland
you'll see it is thicker. Also, to show the point, apparantly one of
the Kirkland pieces on display had been dropped long ago and was
slightly flattened in. A thicker pot will be a bit sturdier.
Even so, Kirkland is thick enough to give good performance. It should
be slightly less sturdy than the Calphalon, slightly quicker to heat
up, and maybe have not quite as uniform heating (but you probably
wouldn't be able to tell the difference).
BTW, Cooks Illustrated rated nonstick anodized aluminum pots very
high, higher than non-nonstick. The only thing that beat it was
nonstick Allclad, which is an aluminum pot lined with stainless with a
nonstick coating and will cost you about twice as much. I opted for
Calphalon professional nonstick.
And you should shop Macy's now too. I got a $144 5 qt saucier for
$56. It was on sale for $70 and I used a 20% off coupon on top. And,
since I also bought 2 other pieces, I got a nonstick wok for "free".
However, even with their discounts, I wasn't able to beat Costco's
price on the Calphalon nonstick set they sold. Do they still sell it?
FYI: the pot review is in the May/June 97 issue. I have a copy if you
want to look.
--
Michelle Dick art...@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA
s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu
Not entirely sure why, but I'm just happier with a combination
of enameled cast-iron (we have a few La Cruset pieces, but
also some much less costly generic ones that work fine);
and stainless steel for things that don't need the weight (Revereware,
Farberware and the like). And of course one plain cast-iron skillet.
(This of course has little to do with the question at hand.)
S.
C.L. Gifford
>
> GeneK wrote:
> >
> > Right. But if you're making a small batch of pasta, you probably
> > won't use that pot, most people who live alone or with just
> > one other person end up using a smaller pot and the pasta insert
> > never gets used...
> >
> > Gene
> >
> > Young wrote:
> > >
> > > 4 qt All Clad. I thought the deal with pasta inserts is that they
> > > lined the pot with a colander that you'd lift out ... that's not true?
>
> All Clad pot is HEAVY once full of water and pasta. It doesn't have
> a helper handle, which means I have to carry it full of boiling water to
> the sink and struggle to dump it into a colander, all the time at almost
> shoulder level. Meaning, it's a bear to tip over at that height and
> with one narrow handle that doesn't give you much grip to hang onto that
> baby.
>
> It would be a major improvement if I could just lift out an insert that
> had two handles and left the water behind.
>
> nancy
Nancy, I have a Cuisineart pasta pot that I like very much. I
don't have any of the problems others are mentioning about the
insert. It is very easy to lift out of the pot and drains the
past well. The Cuisineart has the copper disk on the bottom and
heats the water very fast - even on my pitiful burner. Got it on
sale from Cooks Catalog for a very nice price. And, without the
insert is a great stock pot.
Charlie
--
*****************************************************************
Charles Liam Gifford 32:44:58N
<>< 117:06:33W
USS PORTERFIELD DD682
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/8893
Michelle Dick
>Personally I dislike no-stick-coated cookware.
>Not entirely sure why, but I'm just happier with a combination
>of enameled cast-iron (we have a few La Cruset pieces, but
>also some much less costly generic ones that work fine);
I have both. I use the Le Creuset for oven work, where it excels and
the nonstick anodized aluminum for stovetop, where it excels. And a
carbon steel wok for very high heat cooking, where it excels. Oh, and
a visions glass double boiler (about the only good use for glass
cookware). For skillets, I use the nonstick for lower heat tasks and
a stainless coated aluminum bottom skillet for higher heat tasks. I
make about 8 quarts of two different stews every week, and after
trying Le Creuset, a large aluminum stockpot, a stainless steel
aluminum disk bottomed stockpot and getting poor results, I finally
bought a 10 qt nonstick coated anodized aluminum pot (this was after
reading the Cooks Illustrated article where they found that this sort
of pot outperformed the non-nonstick pots, even all-clad stainless)
and the stews cooked perfectly every time. The stews weren't so hard
to cook when I only made 2 to 4 quarts, but as soon as I tried to up
it to 8, the heat transfer issues really came in to play.
Cast iron holds heat well, making it good for oven work. It is heavy
and hard to manaever on the stovetop, and the heat transfer is very
poor compared to copper and aluminum, so it's not the best choice for
slap and dash stir frys.
But beyond the pure form/function features, aesthetics and joy of
cooking play a big role. My mother also loves to use Le Creuset on
the stovetop. She has a two-tone tan finish set that's never been
sold in the US, only France (I've never seen it here). She also gave
me many pieces of it as well. She lived there for a few years and got
attached to it then.
Probably the most important point to be made concerning cookware is:
don't buy a set until you are sure that's what you want. Almost all
the lines sell inexpensive "try me" pieces. Get those and make sure
it suits your particular cooking needs and style before investing in a
set. Some design issues to consider: do you want glass or metal lids?
Do you want a stay cool handle? And how cool? Some of the metal stay
cool handles heat up gas stoves but not on electric. How will you
store the pots? I hang mine on the walls and I like the fact that I
can thread the lids over the handles and hang it with the pot. Would
it bother you if it wasn't dishwasher safe.? How heavy a pot can you
handle (do you have arthritis?)? Do you want the outside of the pot
to be easy to clean? And so on. This is a highly individual choice.
Michelle Dick
>
>My question is, is there any real difference for the ordinary cook
>between the Kirkland cookware and the "fancier" stuff?
You probably won't notice a difference between Kirkland and any of the
other anodized aluminum nonstick lines, no.
Kirkland is thicker than circulon, which I also have a few pieces of.
If you like circulon, I think you'll like Kirkland even more.
But, I'd still recommend shopping Macy's to check out the competition.
There are several manufacturers making nonstick anodized aluminum
lines. Design issues vary and this is a competitive market.
Calphalon won't be as cheap as Kirkland, but Analon might and it's
also a good choice. They have a midrange line with plastic handles
and I quite like the small saucepan I have from that line. It also
has a nonstick type coating on the outside of the pot, making it
easier to clean than bare anodized aluminum.
s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu
> <s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>Personally I dislike no-stick-coated cookware.
>>Not entirely sure why, but I'm just happier with a combination
>>of enameled cast-iron (we have a few La Crueset pieces, but
>>also some much less costly generic ones that work fine);
>I have both. I use the Le Creuset for oven work, where it excels and
>the nonstick anodized aluminum for stovetop, where it excels.
>[lots of excellent discussion snipped]
One point I will make is that for making a risotto dish, using
the La Creuset on the stovetop works perfectly. The weight
really helps. Or seems to. (As you point out, some of this
is a matter of preference and psychology.)
>For skillets, I use the nonstick for lower heat tasks and
>a stainless coated aluminum bottom skillet for higher heat tasks.
I don't yet own any aluminum-bottom stainless but that sounds like
the way to go for a large skillet. (I use a standard stainless
skillet for things like chili, chile rellenos, and even 4-person
omelets and I don't particularly have problems with uneveness,
but I like the idea of an aluminum bottom.)
> [re. stews] and the stews cooked perfectly every time. The stews
> weren't so hard to cook when I only made 2 to 4 quarts, but as soon
> as I tried to up it to 8, the heat transfer issues really came in
> to play.
Interesting point. I have always assumed that part of the problem
with cooking something that large is simply the inadequate heat
output of my consumer-grade stove; but maybe a more conductive
pot made of thick aluminum would help.
thanks for posting
Steve
GeneK
Calphalons (wedding presents), which look great but in my view are way
too fragile, and I have my battered, ancient Wearever aluminums, 30 yr
old handmedowns from my late uncle's restaurant, and a set of carbon
steel Chinese woks and flatpans that are so well-seasoned they are more
nonstick than the Calphalons, can be used with metal utensils, and self-
heal when the seasoning is scratched. Since my oldpro gear is unsightly,
it resides in a lower cabinet when not in use while the Calphalons are
on display.
Gene
Michelle Dick wrote:
>
> I have both. I use the Le Creuset for oven work, where it excels and
Edwin Pawlowski
Mike Lipsie wrote in message <36719EE1...@sdsi.com>...
>And that is the problem. First, you need to add more water with the
>insert than without to compensate for the "shorter" pot that you are
dealing
>with. Second, when you lift the insert it is a real pain to avoid spill
water
>everywhere.
>
>I would rather use a colander.
All depends on how it is made I guess. We have a Farberware pot with the
liner and you have to add less than 1/2 inch to compensate for it. When
making a single serving, it is too large a pot. When making a family sized
pot of whatever is cooking it works well.
Much easier to lift the liner and contents than an additional 8 or 10 pounds
of 200+ degree water with arthritic hands.
Ed
e...@snet.net
TeresaD
Michelle Dick wrote in message <74v0hm$2v1$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>In article <gnbt47...@ns1.integrityol.com>,
>TeresaD <ter...@integrityol.com> wrote:
>Do you have a gas or electric stove? I found that when I moved to gas
>from electric, all the "stay cool" metal pot handles no longer stayed cool.
>
It's electric.
>>this Christmas. I'm throwing out the Calphalon because this cookware
suits
>>my needs so much better.
>
>If it's nonstick professional Calphalon, I'll take it from you. I'll
>even pay you for it if it's good condition. Send me email.
>
I don't know what it is. I would say it's not non-stick because everything
I've ever cooked in it sticks. I can even make boiling water stick to it!
I think we ruined it by washing it in the dishwasher. I didn't know you
aren't supposed to do that. The only thing I have that hasn't been in the
dishwasher is a lasagna pan. But the lasagna still sticks to it.
>Calphalon has at least 3 lines of cookware, I'm not interested in the
>non-nonstick line (which is a different beast that the Calphalon line
>Costco sells or their Kirkland brand).
Michelle Dick
>downsides to it. While the handles are designed to stay cool when cooking,
>the handles on the lids get hot - so you have to use a potholder to take the
>lid off.
Do you have a gas or electric stove? I found that when I moved to gas
from electric, all the "stay cool" metal pot handles no longer stayed cool.
>this Christmas. I'm throwing out the Calphalon because this cookware suits
>my needs so much better.
If it's nonstick professional Calphalon, I'll take it from you. I'll
even pay you for it if it's good condition. Send me email.
Calphalon has at least 3 lines of cookware, I'm not interested in the
evelyn ubhoff
I purchased some Berndes saute panes (made in Germany and available at
Williams-Sonoma) and realized then what a difference really good cookware
can mean in preparation and clean-up ease. I have quite a variety of
Berndes now...definitely the best I have ever used. I am talking about the
clad aluminum...they also have a stainless steel line but I cannot testify
to those.
Evelyn
evelyn ubhoff
you are interested in checking them out
craig snarr
Michelle Dick wrote:
> In article <3671A950...@rahul.net>, Me Again <mag...@rahul.net> wrote:
> >
> >My question is, is there any real difference for the ordinary cook
> >between the Kirkland cookware and the "fancier" stuff?
>
> You probably won't notice a difference between Kirkland and any of the
> other anodized aluminum nonstick lines, no.
i almost feel funny for asking, but, any say on the pans they advertise on TV,
that has the "little bumps" for better cooking? Normally i wouldn't even think
twice about those TV pitchs, but i saw the same thing in Macy's with "As Seen On
TV!" Makes me wonder if there isn't anything to it?
i really like this thread been learning alot about pans and such. i've been just
using whatever, but now after reading what a difference it can make, i'm going to
start looking around!
craig "now, how much would you pay? BUT wait!"
Steve Wertz
:
:
:
: > It's a common ploy for retailers to sell house branded items
: > because of higher profit margin. It does not mean inferior,
: > (i.e. Kenmore).
:
:
: Since when are Kenore products inferior? I'd always heard that
: Sears OEM'd Kenmore stuff from reputable manufacturers. For
: example, I understand that their washing machines are actually
: made by Whirlpool.
I was shooping for dehumidfyers this weekend. At Sears, the dehumidifyer
was labeled Kenmore, when I went to Orchard Supply across the street,
it was the same one, for $10 less (on sale) labeled Whirlpool
(or at least had a shipping label on the box from Whirlpool).
So, yes, what you said.
-sw
Me Again
>
> Has anyone bought the "Kirkland" cookware at CostCo?
BTW, for those who asked, here are some additional details about the
Kirkland cookware:
It's anodized aluminum with a Dupont non-stick coating on the inside.
The steamer insert and pasta insert are stainless steel. It's made in
China.
The Kirkland set is remarkably similar to the Analon line, available at
Macys. Both are anodized aluminum with a non-stick interior, with
identical pot and pan handles, and identical glass lids and lid
handles. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Kirkland cookware is
made by the same manufacturer and just sold under the Kirkland name.
The 9 piece Analon set is priced at $299 at Macys and includes:
1-quart and 3-quart sauce pans, 7-quart stockpot, 10.5"/4-quart saute
pan, 2-quart stainless steel insert and 10" omelette pan (7-quart lid
fits 10" omelette). Hard anodized, 5-gauge aluminum DuPont Autograph
3-coat non-stick interior. Break resistant, Cook 'N Look glass lid.
Stay-cool, 18/10 stainless steel handles. Oven safe to 500ลก. Limited
lifetime warranty*. Open stock value $558).
You can see this set on the Macys website at:
http://www.macys.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ExecMacro/prod_dis.d2w/report?product_rn=9976&Wizard=Product
While I was at Macys, I also looked at the other cookware lines. I
realized that the housemate that just moved out had the Calphalon
cookware. It ate oil, managed to scorch everything anyway, and
stained. I couldn't identify any visible signs that distinguished one
Calphalon model from another (Professional vs Commercial Non-Stick vs
Hard Anodized) so it may be that he simply had the worst of the three
model lines. He sure paid a fortune for this stuff though! I can
honestly say that I have never liked any cookware less. I wouldn't take
it if you gave it to me, it would be a waste of cupboard space and I can
understand why another poster has said that she is getting rid of hers.
I did really like the Circulon and if the Circulon wasn't twice the
price (for a similar sized set with steamer inserts) and only available
with normal lids (no glass lids although lids from another line fit some
of the pots fairly well and can be purchased out of open stock, although
of course this increases my total cost...) I would probably prefer the
Circulon to the Kirkland set. But I can't justify the cost when I cook
as infrequently as I do now (single, SillyCon Valley geek, I eat out at
least 1/2 of the time and nuke frozen food most of the time when I am
home because I just don't have time or motivation to cook). Maybe in a
few years when life settles down and I have more time to cook.
Thanks tons to everyone who contributed to this thread and for all the
private replies!
jc (signing off from rec.food.cooking now, but will still see replies
that are cross-posted to ba.food)
Andrew Lee
seconds and once in a blue moon, All Clad. The store in the Great
Mall seems to have the best selection. The Linen N Things on Stevens
Creek is having a 50% sale on Le Cruset. As of yesterday, they only had
a few pieces left but you can get a 5.5 qt Dutch oven for $80.
evelyn ubhoff (evelyn...@stanford.edu) wrote:
: I have seen Magnalite pieces at T.J. Maxx sometimes...some good prices if
: you are interested in checking them out
--
Andrew Lee
al...@cup.hp.com
Harry A. Demidavicius
But if transport is a problem, I would almost think in terms of
putting a humongous "normal" pot next to the one you are doing the
past in and only having to schlepp it a foot or so. Then you have
more options as to how you can deal with draining etc.
Harry Demidavicius
On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 16:21:04 -0500, Young <qwe...@mail.monmouth.com>
Michelle Dick
craig snarr <cr...@hoover.stanford.edu> wrote:
>i almost feel funny for asking, but, any say on the pans they advertise on TV,
>that has the "little bumps" for better cooking?
Well, "little bumps" might make a difference, but they are rarely, if
ever, on pans thicker than 2mm. You'll get much better performance
paying for thickness for heat transfer performance first. Besides,
the newer nonstick coatings on the more expensive lines (and here I
include Kirkland, Calphalon, Magnalite, and Analon nonstick coatings
among others), are so good, that I can't imagine "little bumps" being
of much improvement. They might make a difference on thin pans with
inferior nonstick coatings, but why bother with such pans in the first
place?
Circulon (which has grooves), is decent, but even it is on the thin
side. I still use some of my Circulon pieces, but I must admit they
aren't my favorite to cook with any more.
Cyndi Albro
>Geoff Miller (geo...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Anyway, getting back to cookware, whatever became of Magnalite?
>
>They're still around, although their distribution channel is extremely
>limited. For those in the Bay area, you can still purchase Magnalite at
>the Chicago Cutlery outlet in Gilroy. You can find a Le Cruset outlet
>there as well.
Since someone is asking "whatever became of", I'd like to ask whatever
became of Scanpans? I have 6 pans/wok/saucepans and absolutely love
them. But I haven't seen the brand for a few years now.
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"moo"
Marie Martinek
>
>The problem is that, while I'm not weak, I am only 5'2" and the
>All Clad pot is HEAVY once full of water and pasta. It doesn't have
>a helper handle, which means I have to carry it full of boiling water to
>the sink and struggle to dump it into a colander, all the time at almost
>shoulder level. Meaning, it's a bear to tip over at that height and
>with one narrow handle that doesn't give you much grip to hang onto that
>baby.
>
>It would be a major improvement if I could just lift out an insert that
>had two handles and left the water behind.
You do realize that you will be dripping water all across the kitchen floor,
right? I quit using the pasta insert for that reason -- I needed two hands for
the insert, and a third hand to hold the bowl under it for the drips...
It also hangs too high above the water so you have to put in vast amounts of
water for a little bit of pasta, while being too small to make a vast amount
of pasta.
By the way, I completely understand about the difficulty. I'm 4'10",
and although I'm strong (I lift weights), the angle of pouring can be
difficult. As well as having to pause in order to let the steam on my glasses
dissipate so I can see where I'm pouring.
Marie Martinek
P. O. Box 172
Northbrook, IL 60065
mv-ma...@nwu.edu
Young
> fancy (read expensive) pot, just to boil water?
You're not the first person to say that. The fact is, it's a 4 quart
saucepan that I use for a lot of things. One of them is boiling water.
I feel like I have to defend myself for buying an (admittedly) expensive
pot. I've noticed a level of scorn for people that pay a lot for a
cooking utensil. Well, except for the problem I have pouring off the
pasta water, I love the pot and I'm not sorry I bought it.
nancy
Andrew Lee
money on an insert, get a 5 qt sauce pan -- one with a good long
handle that you can put two hands around. The handle makes it easy to
carry to the sink as well as to dump into a waiting colander. I have
an aluminum Eagleware pan that I picked up from a restaurant supply
house. Go to www.boxernw.com and pick out a Lincoln or Duraware.
They are less than $30 and are perfect for pasta. If you don't have a
good colander, look for a wire strainer with a long handle as well (so
it can rest on the edge of the sink). My Halco strainer has an even
longer handle than my pot!
Marie Martinek (mv-ma...@nwu.edu) wrote:
: You do realize that you will be dripping water all across the kitchen floor,
: right? I quit using the pasta insert for that reason -- I needed two hands for
: the insert, and a third hand to hold the bowl under it for the drips...
--
Andrew Lee
al...@cup.hp.com
Kris Dow
>Skip the inserts and the fancy pots. Why do people want to buy a
>fancy (read expensive) pot, just to boil water? Rather than spending
>money on an insert, get a 5 qt sauce pan -- one with a good long
>handle that you can put two hands around. The handle makes it easy to
>carry to the sink as well as to dump into a waiting colander. I have
>an aluminum Eagleware pan that I picked up from a restaurant supply
>house. Go to www.boxernw.com and pick out a Lincoln or Duraware.
>They are less than $30 and are perfect for pasta. If you don't have a
>good colander, look for a wire strainer with a long handle as well (so
>it can rest on the edge of the sink). My Halco strainer has an even
>longer handle than my pot!
>
Admittedly, I wouldn't buy an expensive pot *just* to boil
water (in fact, when we moved in, I went out and bought a cheap one
for that purpose because none of the "nice" pots we had were big enough
to properly boil water in) but I think people are a little hard on other
people when they percieve that they're using "tricks" rather than doing
it the good old fashioned way. (Like using an insert to retrieve pasta,
rather than carrying the whole pot to the sink and pouring it into a
colander.)
There's nothing *wrong* with carrying the pot of water to the
sink, but it doesn't work for some people. If it works for you, great.
But why post lambasting people because it doesn't work for them? (This
is not directed solely at the poster I've quoted, by the way. A number
of people have posted similar things.)
Personally, I don't think the inserts look all that wonderful.
I can't help but think that it'd just be something else to have to
store when you wanted to use the pot for a task other than boiling
water. I *do* like the ideas I've seen regarding using scoops of
various types. I have seen "pasta scoops" in catalogs, but they tend
to look mostly like colanders, and I think they'd hold a little too
much water, so you'd risk dripping hot water all over. The suggestion
to use one of the big wire scoops like you find in some areas of
oriental cooking seems a good one, worth looking into.
-Kris
(Who burned her hand quite badly whilst draining a pot of
boiling water not too long ago, and is thus looking for alternatives to
getting her hands anywhere near hot water for a while. :)
Mary Frye
<snip thoughts on inserts to pasta pots etc>
> -Kris
> (Who burned her hand quite badly whilst draining a pot of
> boiling water not too long ago, and is thus looking for alternatives to
> getting her hands anywhere near hot water for a while. :)
ouch! yes I've burned myself with the steam when pouring out pasta. I
have an insert but forget to use it lots of time and it's only big
enough for pasata for 2. I make sure I use two oven mitts when I pour
out pasta into a colander. I also have to make sure no kids or cats are
underfoot first before I move it from the stove to the sink (I'm quite
the Klutz ;-) ).
Lets be careful out there and have great holidays!
--
Mary f. <wondering what's in the Large box addressed to Bernie
that came from Chef's Catlog today???>
_ _
( \ / )
|\ ) ) _,,,/ (,,_
/, . '`~ ~-. ;-;;,_
|,4) -,_. , ( `'-'
'-~~' (_/~~' `-'\_)
It's a widdle,widdle, widdle pud (She's not big on sharing, is she?)
http://home.earthlink.net/~maryf
Bob Y.
>-Kris
> (Who burned her hand quite badly whilst draining a pot of
>boiling water not too long ago, and is thus looking for alternatives to
>getting her hands anywhere near hot water for a while. :)
>
Try getting one of those wooden or plastic pasta forks. They look like a spoon
with holes in the bottom and tines on top. They work for any long type pasta.
Any skimmer will work with rigatoni, penne, shells, etc.
Pride is a blossom of ashes. Bitter in the mouth, sharp to the nose, stinging to the eyes, and blown away on the first wind from the mountains. Plant no pride, lest you harvest shame.
_Once a Hero_, E. Moon
Bob Y.
Andrew Lee
: (Like using an insert to retrieve pasta,
: rather than carrying the whole pot to the sink and pouring it into a
: colander.)
I still don't get the logic here. Let's say you do remove the pasta
with some gadget (insert, scoop, etc.). Don't you still have the
original pot full of water? Wouldn't that need to be carried to the
sink and emptied?
: There's nothing *wrong* with carrying the pot of water to the
: sink, but it doesn't work for some people. If it works for you, great.
See my point above.
: But why post lambasting people because it doesn't work for them?
I wasn't "lambasting" Nancy. In fact, I already e-mailed her directly
stating that no offense was intended. The point of my post was to
offer a possible solution to a common problem. Maybe there is an
easier way, no? Did you not read beyond the first two sentences? For
me, using the right pot makes a big difference and it may even be cheaper
than an insert or a scoop.
: (Who burned her hand quite badly whilst draining a pot of
: boiling water not too long ago, and is thus looking for alternatives to
: getting her hands anywhere near hot water for a while. :)
Once again, a pot with a *long* handle may be the gizmo that you are
looking for.
--
Andrew Lee
al...@cup.hp.com
Michelle Dick
Kris Dow <kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 17 Dec 1998 02:00:15 GMT, Andrew Lee <al...@cup.hp.com> wrote:
>>Skip the inserts and the fancy pots. Why do people want to buy a
>>fancy (read expensive) pot, just to boil water?
Actually, you can pick up "everything" pots which consist of a large
aluminum pot, a pasta insert, a steaming tray, and a colander for $10
pretty regularly. They are thin walled and aren't much use for
anything other than boiling water. As it turns out, I don't actually
like the large in-pot pasta drainers (they take too long to drain), so
my "everything" pot sits unused, but some folks like 'em. I think
a thin wire basket like they have for fryers might actually be a
better design (though it might be hard to keep the pasta from sticking
to it) but I've never seen these sold as pasta inserts.
As Kris said, folks interested in more expensive pots are looking for
a more multipurpose pot that also makes doing pasta easier.
> There's nothing *wrong* with carrying the pot of water to the
>sink, but it doesn't work for some people. If it works for you, great.
No kidding. At age 32, I recently had what turned out to be my first
(and hopefully last) osteoarthritic flare (of the cervical spine). I
could not lift heavy objects. I usually do dump my pasta into a
colander in the sink. I made some dumplings during the pain and had
to use a slotted spoon to retrieve the dumplings rather than pouring
water and all into a colander in the sink.
Bob Y.
<snip>
>Actually, you can pick up "everything" pots which consist of a large
>aluminum pot, a pasta insert, a steaming tray, and a colander for $10
>pretty regularly. They are thin walled and aren't much use for
>anything other than boiling water. As it turns out, I don't actually
>like the large in-pot pasta drainers (they take too long to drain), so
>my "everything" pot sits unused, but some folks like 'em. I think
>a thin wire basket like they have for fryers might actually be a
>better design (though it might be hard to keep the pasta from sticking
>to it) but I've never seen these sold as pasta inserts.
Williams-Sonoma sells them, but like most of their stuff they are not cheap.
Seems like they were asking $20 for a plain wire basket, sold as a pasta insert.
The Cook
>Kris Dow (kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: (Like using an insert to retrieve pasta,
>: rather than carrying the whole pot to the sink and pouring it into a
>: colander.)
>
>I still don't get the logic here. Let's say you do remove the pasta
>with some gadget (insert, scoop, etc.). Don't you still have the
>original pot full of water? Wouldn't that need to be carried to the
>sink and emptied?
But once you have the food out, you can usually turn off the burner
and wait until it cools down.
>
>: There's nothing *wrong* with carrying the pot of water to the
>: sink, but it doesn't work for some people. If it works for you, great.
>
Young
>
> al...@cup.hp.com (Andrew Lee) wrote:
> >I still don't get the logic here. Let's say you do remove the pasta
> >with some gadget (insert, scoop, etc.). Don't you still have the
> >original pot full of water? Wouldn't that need to be carried to the
> >sink and emptied?
>
> But once you have the food out, you can usually turn off the burner
> and wait until it cools down.
Also, when you dump out just water it's just one motion, and you could
even just set it down and tip it.
But, when I drain pasta, it's usually, pour half of the water out, then
try to get the pasta to all land in the colander. (laugh) I've
sacrificed more than one ravioli to the sink gods.
Really, this issue is not central to my life, I was just asking about
the pasta inserts. A wire basket would be ideal. I could just lift
it out and set it into a bowl to finish draining. Other than that, I
might get a pasta pot, we'll see.
Thanks for everyone's advice.
nancy
i...@svpal.org
rdy...@wcc.net wrote:
> On 17 Dec 1998 22:43:44 GMT, kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk (Kris Dow) wrote:
>
> >-Kris
> >boiling water not too long ago, and is thus looking for alternatives to
> >getting her hands anywhere near hot water for a while. :)
> >
> with holes in the bottom and tines on top. They work for any long type pasta.
> Any skimmer will work with rigatoni, penne, shells, etc.
A collander works quite well too.
And you can get strainers with handles specifically designed for
draining water from the pot.
--
#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#--#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#
In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers chose to limit the powers
afforded to government. Government now wishes we would forget this.
Fat chance!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Andrew Lee
: But once you have the food out, you can usually turn off the burner
: and wait until it cools down.
Point taken. But believe it or not, my long handled pot works equally
well with both cold *and* hot water. ;-) It's easy to carry in both
cases.
--
Andrew Lee
al...@cup.hp.com
Michelle Dick
>I still don't get the logic here. Let's say you do remove the pasta
>with some gadget (insert, scoop, etc.). Don't you still have the
>original pot full of water? Wouldn't that need to be carried to the
>sink and emptied?
Yes, you are correct. But only after it has cooled, making it safer
to transport. Also, it can be left until someone else is available to
empty it -- required when the cook is unable to carry it at all (which
was what I had to do when my arthritis was bad, my housemate emptied
it later that evening when he got home). Alternatively, you can use a
small pitcher and take out most of the water in batches, if necessary.
BTW, I found lots of useful hints on how to work around arthritis and
and other disabilities on the net (the arthritis foundation in
particular has a goodly amount of information, including many
excellent pamphlets in PDF format), and though my disability was
thankfully brief (only a few weeks), I've a *lot* more respect for
those afflicted with such chronic diseases now.
Jim Hunt
comes individually wrapped. I know it isn't worth eating, but
it's easy to use and vaguely reminiscent of real cheese.
Well when I got home I discovered that I had two different kinds.
One is cheese spread, one is cheese food, the cheese spread is a
bit closer to what I call cheese, or at least american cheese, the
cheese food has a sheen and rubbery texture and resembles plastic.
I'm aware that this is really like asking the question, is sour
cream or plain yogurt a closer approximation to cognac.
It is worth noting that, apparently by law, neither of these
products actually calls itself "cheese!"
However, I thought the ingredients would amuse somebody:
American American
Pasteurized Pasteurized
Process Process
Cheese Cheese
SPREAD FOOD
--------------------------------------------
American Cheese American Cheese
(Milk, Salt, (Milk, Salt,
Cheese Culture, Enzymes) Cheese Culture, Enzymes)
Water Water
ButterMilk
Skim Milk Cheese Skim Milk Cheese
(Skim Milk, Salt, (Skim Milk, Salt,
Cheese Culture, Enzymes) Cheese Culture, Enzymes)
Skim Milk
Milkfat
Whey protein concentrate
Whey Whey
ButterMilk
Skim Milk
Sodium Citrate Sodium Citrate
Milkfat
Salt Salt
Sorbic Acid Sorbic Acid
Annato Color Annato and
Carotenol Color
Now, does anyone know the details of the bizarre laws (which
the milk board obviously forced into place) that result in
this twisted naming scheme based on the subtle differences
in recipe above?
--
Jim hunt@"ESS GEE EYE".com http://reality.sgi.com/hunt/hunt.html
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
GTong
(Jim Hunt) wrote:
> Well when I got home I discovered that I had two different kinds.
> One is cheese spread, one is cheese food, the cheese spread is a
> bit closer to what I call cheese, or at least american cheese, the
> cheese food has a sheen and rubbery texture and resembles plastic.
>
> I'm aware that this is really like asking the question, is sour
> cream or plain yogurt a closer approximation to cognac.
Let's get in the Xmas mood ... With all the bizarre things that go into
making "cheese" around the world, and all the tastes and textures that
result, let's look at what you got as an "exotic" American species.
--
To reply, remove ".out".