So, what’s the advantage/strong point of these , other than nostalgia? I had them when I got my first place…but…they’ve been replaced by All-Clad stainless, deBuyer carbon steel and others. (I think I gave my last one to my son.) They looked nice, for sure…and bring back good memories of my grandmother and mother…wait…I still have two of the large stock pots…
But…what is the plus of them? That I don’t know. I assume you’re all talking about the copper-bottomed ones?
Copper bottoms, lightweight, mostly stainless steel for ease of cleaning, indestructable (at least before they were cheapened), classic.
What’s not to like, Stuart?
Or are you the kind of guy who opts for every newfangled fashion?
Yep, agreed. Heats up/cooks evenly, very easy to clean even if you do happen to scorch/burn something, durable. Handles stay cool. Downside I’m going to assume not ovenproof due to the bakelite handles. Never tested them though.
I think I found the heat radiation in the saute/frypans I had spotty…and…if I remember right, they weren’t totally flat by the time I gave them away.
I don’t not like them…I’m trying to understand why people are so fond of them here.
As I got more “serious” about cooking and got higher capacity gas burners…I valued heavy and sturdy more and more, I think. Now I have a Blue Star cooktop with 25,000 BTU burners…and…find the carbon steel (deBuyer) perfect. I’ve also gotten away from stainless pans, as stuff, particularly fish, seems to stick on it more.
But…I don’t reject old, or value “new” particularly (no interest in sous vide, for example) but have realized that some things my parents and grandparents used are best left in those eras…when their goals and cooking-heat sources were different. (I don’t think my mother ever had a gas cooktop anywhere, let alone high heat.
But, basically, trying to understand what seems to be credible fondness. Utility is most important to me, though.
The old skillets I have, including a 12" one, are still pretty dead flat, and I’ve been using the stuff on gas burners for 35 years. I can’t remember the BTUs on the big burner on my current stove, but it’s way higher than anything I’ve had before.
So, for me, the utility and durability is demonstrated. And, as you can see, lots of other people have sound the same thing. I was delighted to get all my mother’s Revere pots and pans when she moved into assisted living four years ago.
I think they are too lightweight. My wife and I have also inherited several (although ours are from the late 70s – maybe by then they were lower quality?), and while we keep them around to make pasta, rice, etc. when our other pots/pans are in use or dirty, we generally do not use them to saute, sear, or make sauces because they don’t retain heat very well and don’t heat very evenly.
I wish they did; I’m all in favor of heirlooms and nostalgia, and the price was obviously right. But we received all-clad (the regular stainless) for our wedding, and together with various cast iron (including some heirlooms, which we do use all the time) and aluminum nonstick (we buy inexpensive new ones every year), there’s never really a time when the Revere Ware is the best tool for the job.
because they don’t retain heat very well and don’t heat very evenly.
I thought the opposite?
I use a 3 quart for camping. I think my parents got it as a wedding present - 48 years ago.
The ones I bought in the last 70s are significantly lighter than the earlier ones. I’m not such a fan of the later ones. I only have pans from that time. They’ve held up well, but I don’t know if the skillets would have.
But you don’t expect, or want, that style of pan to retain heat, do you?
Heat retention is largely a function of mass. These pans are very lightweight – heavier than my aluminum pans but lighter than everything else. On the heating evenly front, other people may have different results (these are all old pans, after all), but I’ve got an infrared thermometer and the Revere Ware that I’ve tested doesn’t heat as evenly as the all-clad.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all that your pans are heavier and higher quality than mine. So my points are really limited to the ones I have. On the heat retention front, it obviously depends on the type of cooking you’re doing but the biggest problem I’ve had with my lightweight late-70s Revere Ware is scorching. In other words, the pans are quite responsive, but because they don’t heat evenly, I get hot spots in some places, and because they don’t retain heat very well, I have to turn up the heat a lot when adding food, which in turn leads to scorching in some places while other places are not even up to temp yet… I’m sure you see my point.
Heat retention…no, these are not cast iron, which I am also fond of. Different tools.
All I know is that nothing - including my cast iron - can cook scrambled eggs as well as the large Revere Ware skillet we used in the 50s and 60s. Just nostalgia - not sure but the taste was there.
The copper plated onto Revereware pans was too thin to do anything. It is all looks and marketing. Stainless is not a terribly good conductor and the pans are prone to the problems cited above. I grew up with them and used them for many years. They are durable and reliable. But I happily moved on to better pans.
"Revere Ware produced during the good years of 1939-1968 has a stamp on the bottom that includes a circle and either the words “Process Patent” or “Pat. Pend.” Newer Revere Ware has a much simpler logo that does not include a circle or any reference to a patent.
The older, “Vintage” Revere Ware (before 1968) was made using an electroplating process that resulted in a thick, heavy layer of cladding giving it the legendary “Revere Ware” cooking qualities. Starting in 1968, Revere economized their manufacturing process, and reduced the thickness of the copper cladding by almost 50%. Invisible to the naked eye, this change not only lowered costs but also reduced the effectiveness of the cladding to such a degree that the cooking qualities were adversely affected.
These days, you can get as good or better results from high-end cookware like All-Clad, although you will pay the price. For instance, a nice All-Clad 12" skillet costs in the neighborhood of $130 whereas a vintage 12" Revere Ware skillet can be had for about $20 (or less) on eBay or your local thrift store."
The internet is amazing. Assuming the above is accurate, it explains everything said above. Imagine if we had this conversation 20 years ago. We’d basically have a few contradictory anecdotes and no real answers. And that would be normal and expected. The fact that we can hope for and even expect more now blows my 1993 mind.
“Throughout the late 1960’s and 1970’s, Revere sought to reduce production costs – particularly as regards the traditional copper clad Revere Ware. By far the most significant change made was to reduce the thickness of the copper cladding by shortening the electro-plating cycle time. Eventually, the cladding thickness was cut by almost half. This cut plating costs dramatically and increased production, but also severely compromised the legendary cooking qualities.”
Edited to say: I was too slow
+1. I grew up with pre-1968 [the benchmark cited in Leonard’s post above] Revere Ware and I’d be surprised if the copper on those pans is even 1mm thick. (Anyone got any actual data?) But if I had a couple of my mother or grandmother’s RW pans, I’d happily use them now and then for nostalgia’s sake (ask me sometime about about the pre-WWII electric sandwich press I inherited from my grandmother… i can remember her making grilled cheese sandwiches on it when I was a wee lad).
PS: All-Clad is hardly a “newfangled fashion” … it’s been around since the mid-'70s.
Electroplating generally doesn’t lay down much material; it’s much more analogous to painting with metal than an actual measurable thickness of sheet metal.
If you look at the blog to which Jay linked (search for “thick”), you’ll see a cross section photo that shows the copper “cladding” was equal in thickness to the stainless steel – much more than a coating.