All-Clad Multicooker vs. Pasta Pentola
Eric
two that might fit my needs. One is a 12Qt. Multicooker that has both
a pasta and steamer insert and costs ~$100. The other is their 7Qt.
Pasta Pentola which costs ~$230. Why the huge difference in cost? I
would think that the 12Qt. Multicooker would be more expensive, but
obviously it's not the same quality. Anybody have either or both of
these and who could comment? TIA
Levelwave©
Don't waste $100 on a pot that is basically going to be used to boil
water... plus unless your cooking for an army the 12qt is rather large
and hard to wash... I'd go for a 7qt... This is the best pot I own and
is MUCH MUCH better in terms of quality than the All-Clad Multicooker...
~john
--
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized
nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police
more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
-- Adolph Hitler, 1935
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The
prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
-- Janet Reno US Attorney General
Levelwave©
To answer your question... I own the All-Clad Multicooker. It is NOT
multi-clad... just SS with a thick bottom... I believe the Pasta Pentola
is true clad... SS - aluminum - SS... the Multicooker is rather flimsy
compared to my Piazza...
Kent H.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00008CM6K/qid=1078205008/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2707774-2443329?v=glance&s=kitchen
We have 100 pieces of cuisinart stainless in our home and aren't unhappy
with any of them.
If you want to steam, as we do now and then, go to the nearest Chinese
hardware store and buy a 30cm. steamer, for about 30 bucks. For pasta on
one hand and for steaming anything on the other hand both will work much
better by a wide margin than what you are considering.
The cuisinart pot as all cuisinarts have a pouring lip. All Clad doesn't
even know what that word means!
The steaming inserts they put in stock pots aren't worth a fermented bit
of feces. I have one and have used it once.
The Chinese steamer is a modern version of the old bamboo steamer, which
I used yesterday, and will serve you a long time. I use it to steam live
Dungeness crab frequently.
Good Luck
Kent
BTW, as you can see, both of the above products will set your back about
65 bucks. If you are a certified T-wad as I am you will be happy.
Vox Humana
"Eric" <elu...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:56928e42.04030...@posting.google.com...
Regardless of the difference, I question why anyone would spend $100 let
alone $230 on a pot to boil water. Do you really need a 12 qt. pasta pot?
If so then I guess that I would get the one for $100. If you only need a 7
qt. pot with a pasta insert, then there are many options. Look at K-Mart
for the Martha Stewart line, or at other discount stores for similar items.
I have a Wolfgang Puck 8 qt. stock pot with pasta insert and steamer and it
works great. You can get it open stock here for under $40.
http://tinyurl.com/33l8v
Goomba38
> Regardless of the difference, I question why anyone would spend $100 let
> alone $230 on a pot to boil water. Do you really need a 12 qt. pasta pot?
> If so then I guess that I would get the one for $100. If you only need a 7
> qt. pot with a pasta insert, then there are many options. Look at K-Mart
> for the Martha Stewart line, or at other discount stores for similar items.
> I have a Wolfgang Puck 8 qt. stock pot with pasta insert and steamer and it
> works great.
No, for a pasta or crab pot it's fine to go cheap. The food isn't really in
contact with the pot so all you need is something that will boil water in large
quantity. But for a sauce pan or frying pay, or some other pot that actually
exerts some effect on the food it comes in contact with, the materials, size
and weight does matter.
Goomba
Vox Humana
"Goomba38" <Goom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:404559B1...@comcast.net...
I agree, however this has been discussed ad-nauseum on the various food
newsgroups. People always point to theoretical advantages of the high-end
cookware over disk bottom cookware, but there is no objective data to prove
that a $200 sauce pan is better than a $20 sauce pan. I have tri-ply
cookware and have used other people's tri-ply cookware. Most of mine in the
cheap Wolfgang Puck SS cookware with a disk on the bottom. I can't see any
material differences among the brands. I suppose that if you have some very
specific need, then spending big bucks on a specialized tool makes sense.
For 99% of everyday cooking needs, I think that you can use cookware that is
far less expensive than the likes of All-Clad or any of the even more
expensive alternatives. If it weren't for the reactivity factor and it's
inability to go in the dishwasher, I would use heavy aluminum cookware. I
guess I am lucky in the fact that I get good results from inexpensive
cookware and don't have the "princess and the pea" complex that makes me
unable to tolerate a particular handle shape or weight distribution in a
pan.
Sheellah
and steamer inserts. It's a great size, can be used for other cooking needs as
it's fully clad up the sides, and it's under $80! It's gorgeous too ;-).
Vox Humana
"Sheellah" <shee...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040304101445...@mb-m05.aol.com...
Would you really need cladding up the sides of an 8qt. pan? I guess I'm
just lucky since I don't have food scorch on the sides of my pans. You
would have to have one hell of a big burner to send flames up the sides of
an 8qt. pan. You can get an 8qt. disk bottom pan with pasta insert, steamer
insert, and lid for $39. I also am at a loss to explain how one stainless
steel cylinder can look substantially different than the next.
PENMART01
>
>"Sheellah" wrote:
>
>> I think a good compromise is the 8 qt. Cuisinart Multiclad stockpot with
>pasta
>> and steamer inserts. It's a great size, can be used for other cooking
>needs as
>> it's fully clad up the sides, and it's under $80! It's gorgeous too ;-).
>
>Would you really need cladding up the sides of an 8qt. pan?
Other than a personal aesthetic preference clad sides serve no purpose
whatsoever on any pot regardless of size... clad sides are merely a statement
of ones snobbisheness, and that they possess more dollars than brain cells.
Fact is clad sides hinder proper cooking.
Actually if one could develop one, an ideal stove top cook pot would be
constructed with a bottom material of highly efficient energy transmission
capability and with sides that provide absolute insulation... perhaps there's a
method whereby cook pot sides could be fabricated from the ceramic material
used for spacecraft nosecones and then somehow bonded to thick solid copper
bottoms.
I don't know about yoose but I don't want to cook on pot sides... yoose mean
you lay your pots on their side and then use the interior sides to bake crepes?
---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Actually if one could develop one, an ideal stove top cook pot would be
> constructed with a bottom material of highly efficient energy transmission
> capability and with sides that provide absolute insulation... perhaps there's a
> method whereby cook pot sides could be fabricated from the ceramic material
> used for spacecraft nosecones and then somehow bonded to thick solid copper
> bottoms.
You've said stuff like this before, but I didn't understand then, and I
don't understand now. My best pots are solid aluminum. They conduct
heat from the bottom to the sides reasonably efficiently. I always saw
this as a good thing, because the heat was available to more of the
surface area of the contents.
So if I want to keep water boiling, despite the addition of cold
ingredients, the hot sides seem to help. And if I want to reduce
something, ditto.
Why would cold sides help?
--
...I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...
- The Who
PENMART01
>
>PENMART01 wrote:
>
>> Actually if one could develop one, an ideal stove top cook pot would be
>> constructed with a bottom material of highly efficient energy transmission
>> capability and with sides that provide absolute insulation... perhaps
>there's a
>> method whereby cook pot sides could be fabricated from the ceramic material
>> used for spacecraft nosecones and then somehow bonded to thick solid copper
>> bottoms.
>
>You've said stuff like this before, but I didn't understand then, and I
>don't understand now. My best pots are solid aluminum.
"best" is subjective. Nothing wrong with solid aluminum pots, so long as
they're of a reasonably heavy weight... only so they retain their shape.. thin
aluminum dents and distorts easily. Solid aluminum pots are very economical
and will cook more than suffiently well for all applications where reactiveness
is not an issue... someone who actually knows how to cook can cook well in an
empty coffee can. Heavy weight solid aluminum cookware is the cookware of
choice in most every commercial establishment; it's inexpensive, cooks well,
and in those large institutional sizes it not so heavy as to require a fork
lift for the deep sink crew to move them about.... can you imagine the weight
of say an 80qt All-Crap, empty... probably purty near 80lbs.
Anyway, for boiling large quantities of water, a metal trash can will be just
as efficient as any pot... what do you think trailer parks use for pasta feeds?
They conduct
>heat from the bottom to the sides reasonably efficiently.
Wouldn't it be more advantageous to conduct heat directly to that which is
being cooked? duh
I always saw
>this as a good thing, because the heat was available to more of the
>surface area of the contents.
What makes you think that heat energy stored in the pot sides would only
radiate/conduct internally? Much of that heat energy would radiate/conduct
externally, to the atmosphere, therefore be lost to cooking... why do you think
they sell those insulating jackets for hot water heaters? If all a pot is used
for is boiling liquids then construct one with extra surface area *internally*,
like an ancient samovar... that's how better quality heating boilers and hot
water heaters are constucted - and with lots of insulation surrounding the
exterior.
>So if I want to keep water boiling, despite the addition of cold
>ingredients, the hot sides seem to help.
"Seem to" is not nessesarily fact... merely your perception based on limited
knowledge .. ain't you ever heard "A little knowledge can be dangerous".
And if I want to reduce
>something, ditto.
>
>Why would cold sides help?
Who said anything about cold sides... ceramic is a terrible conducter but is
capable of becoming terribly hot.
Cold and hot are relative... you really need a course in thermodynamics... then
perhaps you'll understand. And for reduction you'd do well to comprehend
configuration.
Unless snob appeal has value to you cookware with multiclad sides is a total
waste of money.... you must be one of those who rationalizes that lotsa shiney
chrome on a Harley makes it operate more efficiently.
Vox Humana
"PENMART01" <penm...@aol.como> wrote in message
news:20040304124254...@mb-m10.aol.com...
I'm in complete agreement with you on this.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> "best" is subjective. Nothing wrong with solid aluminum pots, so long as
> they're of a reasonably heavy weight... only so they retain their shape.. thin
> aluminum dents and distorts easily.
My "best" are Calphalon Professional anodized aluminum. Recently
acquired (cheep). I like them so far.
Solid aluminum pots are very economical
> and will cook more than suffiently well for all applications where reactiveness
> is not an issue... someone who actually knows how to cook can cook well in an
> empty coffee can.
Agreed. But some tools make the job easier, and some need to be fought
with. And no tool will make a good cook out of someone who cannot cook.
Heavy weight solid aluminum cookware is the cookware of
> choice in most every commercial establishment; it's inexpensive, cooks well,
> and in those large institutional sizes it not so heavy as to require a fork
> lift for the deep sink crew to move them about.... can you imagine the weight
> of say an 80qt All-Crap, empty... probably purty near 80lbs.
I've never been too impressed with the clad cookware. It seems expensive
and unnecessary. I like the simplicity of thick aluminum with riveted
handles. I imagine for some tasks it works very well, however.
> Anyway, for boiling large quantities of water, a metal trash can will be just
> as efficient as any pot... what do you think trailer parks use for pasta feeds?
> They conduct
> >heat from the bottom to the sides reasonably efficiently.
> Wouldn't it be more advantageous to conduct heat directly to that which is
> being cooked? duh
> I always saw
> >this as a good thing, because the heat was available to more of the
> >surface area of the contents.
> What makes you think that heat energy stored in the pot sides would only
> radiate/conduct internally? Much of that heat energy would radiate/conduct
> externally, to the atmosphere, therefore be lost to cooking... why do you think
> they sell those insulating jackets for hot water heaters? If all a pot is used
> for is boiling liquids then construct one with extra surface area *internally*,
> like an ancient samovar... that's how better quality heating boilers and hot
> water heaters are constucted - and with lots of insulation surrounding the
> exterior.
OK. I see what you are saying.
> Cold and hot are relative... you really need a course in thermodynamics... then
> perhaps you'll understand. And for reduction you'd do well to comprehend
> configuration.
> Unless snob appeal has value to you cookware with multiclad sides is a total
> waste of money.... you must be one of those who rationalizes that lotsa shiney
> chrome on a Harley makes it operate more efficiently.
You assume too much.
Janet Bostwick
Today, March 8, Amazon.com has the Calphalon 8-qt. stainless steel, multi
cooker for $39.99. Seems like a better deal than $100-$230.
Vox Humana
"Janet Bostwick" <nos...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:104p0na...@corp.supernews.com...
Williams-Sonoma has a nice 8 qt. disk bottom pot with pasta insert, steamer,
and lid for $49. HSN.com has a Wolfgang puck multi-pot for $39. Either
would be a better deal than the $100-$230 pots.
Janet Bostwick
"Vox Humana" <vhu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CM%2c.8582$pg....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
a one-day sale with up to 60% off going on at Amazon today. Le Creuset,
Cuisinart, All-Clad, Henckels etc. Darn shame that I don't need anything.
http://tinyurl.com/23f2s
Janet