[culturestate]

There is a happy medium with mass production - the main issue is that many people (in my observation) no longer value quality equally to price, e.g. the cheapest pot from WalMart will do, and when it chips or warps next year we'll just spend $15 on another one instead of buying a single $50 version that will last. One of the greatest lessons that I've ever learned in business is that you shouldn't spend extravagantly, but you shouldn't be afraid to spend a little more for quality where it matters.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

you shouldn't be afraid to spend a little more for quality where it matters

It's more likely that they don't see any reason to spend more than $15. Someone knows they can get a pot that looks OK for $15, whereas the $50 doesn't have any immediately obvious benefit.

I love tools, but I'm far from a tool snob. I have lots of cheap tools because I'm never going to wear out, e.g., a screwdriver. It's worth more to me to have five $3 screwdrivers than a single $15 one. But I just spent $200 on a wire crimping tool because I know that the $15 ones won't do the job right. But if they did, then there is no way I'd buy the more expensive one. Most people are just like that: they won't spend more than they have to unless there is a clear benefit.

[culturestate]

> I know that the $15 ones won't do the job right. But if they did, then there is no way I'd buy the more expensive one

That's a matter of perspective. If you cook often and have had an opportunity to use the two, you'll notice a stark contrast; just like you notice the difference with crimpers. The guy spending a weekend to redo his home theater wiring is probably going to opt for the $15 option.

How many people research purchases like pans and wire crimpers in order to gain a proper perspective of where the price vs. quality lines cross, and how many just go to the store and get the one with the prettier package? I think that's where you start to see the trend I mentioned.

[bryanlarsen]

In many cases the $15 pot from WalMart is better than the $50 pot. It's thinner than the $50 pot, so it reacts to adjustments in temperature a lot faster. The coating is simple thin Teflon, so it wears out a lot faster than the $50 pot, but it actually has better non-stick properties than the $50 pot.

I've got expensive pots, but the skillets that I use the most are a $5 teflon/aluminum skillet I got from Loblaws that I replace every 6 months, and a $15 cast iron skillet I got from a flea market that I properly seasoned and I expect to last 100 years.

[culturestate]

(A bit off-topic, but...) I've supported myself on the side over the years as a cook, and I can tell you there are some misconceptions there. The difference in heating time is marginal, but thicker bottoms disperse heat _far_ more evenly, preventing hotspots that can ruin whatever you're cooking. Thin pans also have a tendency to warp, but you've solved this by replacing it every six months.

As far as nonstick properties go, a hard anodized pan will be every bit as nonstick as a cheap Teflon pan, but with the added benefit of not leaching chemicals into your food when it gets scratched. Aluminum pans are also great, provided that you know what you're doing - be sure to get them up to proper heat before adding your oil and/or ingredients, and clean them properly.

The cast iron is a great choice.

[bryanlarsen]

That's not my experience. Aluminum is a great heat conductor and I've got a fairly nice stove, so I don't experience much in the way of hot spots. The outer ring of my pan is much cooler than the inside, but that's a good thing, IMO.

On the other hand, cast iron is not a good heat conductor, so I experience much greater heat variation with it unless I let it warm up for quite a while first. The aluminum I can use the instant I put it on the stove. I love it for that.

[ars]

Teflon is pretty much the ultimate in inert. There is no way you are leaching any chemicals into your food. You could scrape the coating off and eat it and it would do nothing.