|
We order cheap nonstick pans from Edward Don & Co. Like 13bux per omelet pan. Buy 6-8 every other month or so. They're incredibly nonstick for the first few weeks, but eventually they degrade. Those fancy diamond pans will too. It's just the nature of teflon.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Someone recommended chefknivestogo.com and Chan Chi Kee knives in particular a while back. I finally ordered one for fun, and I do in fact love the large slicer <3
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
The 150$ Tramontina cookware that's recommended in the OP just dropped to 109. http://www.walmart.com/ip/Tramontina-8-Piece-Cookware-Set/5716478
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
Officer No Gun posted:The 150$ Tramontina cookware that's recommended in the OP just dropped to 109. 
Josh Lyman fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Jul 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
Goons! I want to get started on sharpening my own knives. I live in Sweden, so I can't order off of Amazon as easily as you guys can. I found this deal: http://www.knivesandtools.com/en/pt/-eden-quality-three-piece-sharpening-set.htm which looks good to me. The grits are 240/800 on one stone and 2000/5000 on the other stone and it includes a ceramic sharpening rod. Can anyone weigh in on these stones? Are those four grits enough to put a good edge on my cheap but decent IKEA knives? Also, I already have an IKEA Slitbar sharpening steel (http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/70148989/). I can save about 10 EUR (~10 USD) by buying the stones separate without the rod. Is there a significant difference between a diamond coated sharpening steel and a ceramic rod?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 09:38
|
|
|
Do you have a regular honing rod, not ceramic or diamond-coated? You should have one around to keep your blade in line, and while ceramic and diamond hones can do this, they also take off metal from the blade every time they're used. I think you'd be better off just getting the 2000/5000 and a regular hone, you shouldn't need something as low as 240 unless you're trying to basically regrind the edge on a godawful knife. Also, quick search shows that apparently ceramic hones are more fine than diamond hones, and are better for quick touch-ups. That being said, as it was explained to me at work, a diamond/ceramic hone is better for quick, emergency sharpening when you don't have your stone, but the edge it makes is less reliable and it takes off much more metal from the blade than necessary. Invisible Ted fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 14:11
|
|
|
In my kitchen I've got very limited counter space and even more limited cabinet space, both of which are currently as full as I can reasonably get them. I'm trying to find a good low-profile food processor that I can keep on the counter without it taking up what little space is left. Even though the concept would fit my needs perfectly, I don't trust the look of things like the magic bullet and the cuisinart equivalent. The heft of them and the lack of information on their guts makes me paranoid that they're lovely on the inside and will break down as soon as I try and put them through their paces or try to crush ice. But it would be great if I could get a small-scale food prep machine that could double as a blender, as that would solve a lot of headaches I currently have. Anybody have some advice or experience with either of those things? edit: this was the Cuisinart I was looking at: http://www.amazon.com/Cuisinart-CPB-300-SmartPower-15-Piece-Portable/dp/B003YLEXBO/ Zenzirouj fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jul 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Zenzirouj posted:In my kitchen I've got very limited counter space and even more limited cabinet space, both of which are currently as full as I can reasonably get them. I'm trying to find a good low-profile food processor that I can keep on the counter without it taking up what little space is left. Even though the concept would fit my needs perfectly, I don't trust the look of things like the magic bullet and the cuisinart equivalent. The heft of them and the lack of information on their guts makes me paranoid that they're lovely on the inside and will break down as soon as I try and put them through their paces or try to crush ice. But it would be great if I could get a small-scale food prep machine that could double as a blender, as that would solve a lot of headaches I currently have. Anybody have some advice or experience with either of those things?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
Get your cookware on, people. Deal time! http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007KQZWU/ref=pe_189910_25062530_pe_epc_dt1 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00008CM68/ref=pe_189910_25062530_pe_epc_dt2 Cuisinart's MultiClad Pro 12-piece and Chef's Classic 10-piece for 299 and 159 bucks respectively, down from 670 and 400 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 12:24
|
|
|
Dmaonk posted:Get your cookware on, people. Deal time!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Why are so many lids just stainless steel instead of glass? Wouldn't you want to have glass to that you can see how the food is cooking? I go back and forth. Glass is nice so you can see things, but I'd worry that it's a bit more fragile, particularly if it's dealing with high temperature changes (if I've been steaming something for a while, then accidentally toss the lid into soapy water in my sink, the glass could crack). Plus glass can get a lot of unsightly water spots that I won't ever see on an opaque lid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Dmaonk posted:Get your cookware on, people. Deal time! The 12 piece MCP is $200 at Costco on a regular day, and sometimes drops down to $150
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:The 12 piece MCP is $200 at Costco on a regular day, and sometimes drops down to $150 The costco one is straight up better unless you really want steel lids. It has glass lids, a larger sauce pan, and a 12 inch skillet included. Doodarazumas fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jul 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Why are so many lids just stainless steel instead of glass? Wouldn't you want to have glass to that you can see how the food is cooking? It depends on how much you like to throw stuff in your oven I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
I find they tend to be easier to clean also
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
You can't really see how things cook with glass since they fog up with steam and condensation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:The 12 piece MCP is $200 at Costco on a regular day, and sometimes drops down to $150 Oh, I had no idea. I don't live in the US any more, just saw that in an Amazon newsletter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 12:53
|
|
|
any recommendations for good wok and ring combo, my lovely ikea flat bottom wok is not cutting mustard
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
I got a cast iron wok from these guys: http://www.wokshop.com/HTML/products/woks/wok-cast-iron.html It's been great so far.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
bummer dude posted:any recommendations for good wok and ring combo, my lovely ikea flat bottom wok is not cutting mustard You'll probably be able to pick up a wok ring at any place that sells woks. Of the two basic designs:  I'd take one that looks like the top image over one that looks like the bottom; there's no reason why you'd actually want to restrict airflow through a wok ring, and the perforated kind can sometimes choke a gas flame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
The Chinese food thread recommends a carbon steel wok. Stainless and cast iron should also be fine, just avoid non sticks.
Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 12:46 on Aug 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
OK. I'll say it. I don't understand woks on a burner made for normal pans. I don't understand what you gain vs. a flat-bottom pan when you're not working with magma.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
You might be right. bummer dude, you might want to read the op in the Chinese Food thread. They've got a pretty informative section on woks. edit: in fact, just read the whole first page, they have several Q's and A's about woks Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Aug 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 09:55
|
|
|
No Wave posted:OK. I'll say it. I don't understand woks on a burner made for normal pans. I don't understand what you gain vs. a flat-bottom pan when you're not working with magma. Traditional versus flat-bottomed, the main difference is surface area. This affects how much food you can get in there at once, and how well you're heating the hottest area of the wok. I also think there's a noticeable difference in how the pan behaves just in terms of moving food around in it and so forth, but that's probably just familiarity and personal preference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 12:49
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:You might be right. will do thanks
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
SubG posted:You mean a wok versus a fry pan? Or a traditional wok versus a flat-bottomed wok? Because a wok behaves very differently from a fry pan---thinner, so it's more responsive to temperature changes, sloped so you've got a temperature gradient up the sides, more volume inside the same radius, and so on. I guess my question is - can you really get results in a wok on a normal range that you can't get out of two flat-bottomed pans?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
No Wave posted:I guess my question is - can you really get results in a wok on a normal range that you can't get out of two flat-bottomed pans?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
SubG posted:By `normal range' do you mean an electric range? Because I agree that a round-bottom wok doesn't make sense on an electric range. But with a gas range, even one lacking a dedicated wok burner (or other high-output burner) I think you'll get better results out of removing the spider and using a wok ring compared to what you'd get out of using a flat-bottom wok. Or at least on my particular gas range. On the full sized burners (that is, not on the smaller warming burner) the bottom of the wok rests just slightly over the hob, and flames hit the sides from just above the bottom to well up the side of the pan. Assuming that the burner output is more or less constant and that the wok's efficiency at absorbing it is also more or less constant, then this by itself would result in a more regular cooking surface than applying the heat only to bottom surface (resting on the burner) of a flat-bottom wok. I've been putting the round wok directly on the spider but maybe I'll look into getting a ring. I haven't been getting a great char/caramelization on meat that I cook with my wok but I may be doing too much at a time as well. I had come to the conclusion that if you're using round-bottom you really need the absurd molten heats that proper wok burners generate, and that with a lower amount of heat you'll need much more time so you'll do better to use a normal flat-bottomed pan so that you can give the meat time to caramelize on each side. But if this has really been working - wok/ring on a normal gas range - then maybe I need to rethink that. No Wave fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Aug 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Sorry - I meant gas - I'm being very unclear and I apologize. On the other hand you can also overcrowd a wok and end up greying your meat instead of browning it. I don't put more than a single portion of meat/protein in at a time when I'm trying to brown/sear it---call it around 3 oz/85 g. Brown and reserve it in batches if you need to do more. When it's done, do your veg (in stages if necessary), and then add the meat back in near the end. Right before everything comes out before serving you'll have way more food in the wok than you have at any time while you're cooking things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
Actually, I'm curious myself... whether or not a wok is viable on a western stove... can I just use a cast iron skillet or stainless steel skillet and get similar results to cooking in a traditional wok? Is it just all about searing at high temps or is there some other benefit to using a wok that can't be replicated by skillets?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Works are carbon steel which means they don't retain their heat well. The shape of a wok gives a blistering hot center while the sides aren't as hot. The idea is that you can cook something on the bottom of the wok then move food up the sides to prevent overcooking. You can use a traditional stove with a wok, provided your flame can get hot enough to make it worthwhile. Some stoves have a specific burner that puts out extra-high BTUs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
PRADA SLUT posted:Works are carbon steel which means they don't retain their heat well. The shape of a wok gives a blistering hot center while the sides aren't as hot. The shape also helps with the kind of cooking you usually do in a wok. You can't really get the same sort of rolling stir thing going on with a vertical-sided cast iron skillet (or at least all cast iron skillets I've seen have vertical sides). You really want the sloped sides of something like a fry pan. But a wok has way the gently caress more capacity than a fry pan of the same radius. If I'm doing some kind of stir-fried thing with noodles, I'll have, I dunno, around two quarts/litres of food moving around in there at the end. No loving way I could manage that in a fry pan without ending up redecorating my kitchen. The shape also means that a wok can switch hit as a fryer with a much greater capacity than your average skillet or fry pan. I mean if you want to get all technical sure anything you can do with wok you can do with a cast iron skillet. Like you could in theory cook just about anything with nothing but a Zippo and a lot of raw determination. But unless you're in the kitchen entirely for the perverse masochism, like Pr0k's Mom is, why would you bother?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
Woks can be useful tools still on a household range, especially for noodle dishes and other large quantities of stuff, but no you're never going to be cooking on it in the same manner or getting quite the same flavor you'll see on a legit wok burner. Just my opinion as a restaurant wok cook.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
Okay, I guess the next question is whether a charcoal grill will work or if I should still get a jet burner
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 08:10
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Okay, I guess the next question is whether a charcoal grill will work or if I should still get a jet burner A charcoal grill will work fine: http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/06/the-food-lab-for-the-best-stir-fry-fire-up-the-grill.html Setting the wok directly in the coals or modifying a chimney starter for airflow around the wok both work well without having to buy the spiffy grate. Granted, the grate and a decent chimney cost about the same, anyway. Edit: I use my turkey fryer, but only because I already have it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 08:51
|
|
|
The one issue I could see with the grill is not being able to control your heat with the flip of a lever. You could get around it by moving the wok itself up/down or on/off the grill, so I would definitely want a wok with a handle I could reach without burning myself. Alternatively you could use a turkey fryer like Butch Cassidy said. That's probably what I'd go with if I were bound and determined to stir-fry at home. (Plus you could use it for homebrewing)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
Also good for country boils and whatever else you feel like cooking a shitload of at once
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
Can any canadian goons recommend a ~$20 instant read thermometer? the thermoworks one, the same one that is $20 on amazon.com, is $46 on amazon.ca and they won't ship me the .com one 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
Guitarchitect posted:Can any canadian goons recommend a ~$20 instant read thermometer? the thermoworks one, the same one that is $20 on amazon.com, is $46 on amazon.ca and they won't ship me the .com one If you're talking about the RT600C, BBQs.com (in Ontario) has it for sale for $24.99, with $8 shipping. That's not exactly $20, but it isn't $46 either. I bought an accessory for my Thermapen there, and the shipping was reasonable (few days to Calgary).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Victorinox makes really cheap, decent high quality chefs knives. They're great for teaching yourself proper sharpening and honing technique, and if you manage to destroy the blade you can get a new one for about $25. I've worked with Wusthof and Global knives as well, and the Victorinox is ALMOST as good for a tenth of the price.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 06:48
|
|
