Very useful! I 've always had the impression that the Paderno I mentioned earlier was sort of the benchmark when assessing performance per euro, but your story on thinner copper suggests there is perhaps another attractive alternative.
It’s not relevant for me per se, in that I already have all the copper I want, and see no need for thinner copper than I have. But for others this may be an approach worth seeking out!
By the way, I completely forgot to mention my personal experience… A year ago I bought a second hand 20 cm Falk saute pan, 2.0mm copper as advertised by the seller, and with a stainless steel lining. I paid around 75 euro for it.
Fast forward a year later and it’s a pan I’m using far more often than expected. The ‘thinner’ copper isn’t really noticeable, because of the small diameter.
I don’t really jump saute vegetables, so for me I’d still like 2.3mm there. I really love the thicker copper bottom for vegetables because it helps the caramelisation of vegetables… It brings out the inherent sweetness of fresh and good quality veggies… 
You’ve tried this logic before, Charlie. It doesn’t really apply.
The same cookware can benefit amateur and professional cooks alike, skilled and unskilled the same.
I suppose the same can be said of woodworking tools, yes?
I can’t agree that the chasm between NFL players and touch football enthusiasts mirrors the difference between professional chefs and avid home cooks.
I do agree that the cookware we discuss here, while there are measurable performance differences, is not limiting to the production of excellent food.
The nuances reported here I think are real, but are not very important; but some enjoy nerding out on these somewhat subtle but real performance differences.
If you don’t, and if you feel cookware differences and the tools of the trade are not what make you passionate about food, maybe the cookware forum is not the best fit for your interests.
[quote=“JustCharlie, post:18, topic:32044”]
“If you think an extra millimeter of thickness has set your cuisine apart, then you’re frankly delusional.”
The extra millimeter confers a small but real benefit discernible by the cook during the cooking process but probably not discernible to the guest eating the food in a side by side comparison. Hence, the extra millimeter is helpful but not important.
“If you can’t cook in something thinner without ruining the dish, you were never a cook in the first place.”
Who said I or anyone else can’t cook in something thinner without ruining the dish? I didn’t mean to transmit that. And given the rather unpredictable results in cooking shows featuring head to head competition between cooks of various training levels, how are you so confident you’re better than the rest of the people here? Cooking is not surgery. We all have access to it and have significant practice and skill. In the absence of a cooking Olympiad to rank us against one another, I choose to partake of an ounce or two of humility.
I agree with you. I think there are clearly a differences between a good suitable cookware and an unsuitable cookware. Yet, no cookware can make up lack of cooking technique. I can buy the best wok in the world, and it won’t suddenly make me a great Chinese chef. Same as getting the best yanagiba sushi knife won’t make me a sushi chef neither.
However, measurable “small” difference is something all its take to make a “big” difference.
I do think the term “better” can mean very different things to different people. I think Tim and I chatted a little bit about kitchen knife. For some people, having a knife which is easier to sharpen and stay sharper is better – a carbon steel knife. For other people, having a knife which they can put in a dishwasher and not to worry about wiping down every 30 second is a huge plus – a stainless steel knife.
My guess is that this is what the earlier discussion is about. In almost all situations, a more even heating copper pan is better - thus thicker is better. However, for some people the extra weight associates with it is not worth the more even heating.
Sure, better cookware is…well…better, but I’ll bet we can all knock out good dishes with merely adequate pans.
Ja, naturlich. But why would anyone consciously choose something that makes cooking harder or less satisfactory on that basis alone?
I think it is just a matter of limiting money, and where to allocate the money. Would I be happier if I have an awesome set of $2000-3000 copper cookware or would I be happier to only spend $300 for a medium-low-sh end cookware set and save the rest of money to take a trip to Italy.
Well, I have found that restaurant owners are loathe to say, “Get whatever you like. Spare no expense.” It’s the same way in a lot of home kitchens. I have been massively luckily to be married to someone who supports my hobby/habit, but not everyone has such fortune.
Hey, no need to show off your amazing marriage, ok? 
This is a perfectly valid point.
But in this very thread we have smoke being blown about equality of performance when it’s not equal performance.
I don’t agree that anyone is contending that thinner copper is as good as heavier copper (or anything else), merely that it is quite good and more than adequate for cooking, and an attentive and skilled cook, home cook or professional, can produce superlative dishes using cookware that does not perform as well as either. Maybe they would prefer heavy tinned copper, but if they are in a kitchen stocked with Vollrath and Winco or Tramontina and Cuisinart, they just jump in and use it.
She eats my cooking happily, even tonight’s cacio e pepe made in a thin copper fry pan!
Too funny. Being US-centric, I’ve always called any stove heating surface (whether gas flame, ceramic flat, or coiled electric) a “burner”.
I’m sure that’s just a legacy of my youth and where I grew up (Midwest US).
Like Tim said, I picked up “hob” as a general purpose term from here (and previously, CH). But if I’m just going with my natural inclination, anything that heats a pan is still a “burner”, even though I guess that doesn’t make sense. If I got a portable induction singleton, I’m pretty sure in my head I’d still think of it as a “burner”.
Old habits, old dogs, new tricks and all like that. 
Wasn’t aware Falk made 2.0 copper pans ?
Is this very old stock from Falk ?
Yes I think it is from the early 90s or something.
Ha. Question. To me, the bigger problem of a thin cookware is less about its heat evenness/unevenness (yes, true, but it is a known factor). The bigger problem is cookware warped under heat stress. Anyone has first-hand or second-hand experience with copper cookware warped?
I have owned and used daily the thinner 1.5-2 mm tin-lined copper. Nothing so far has warped.
Coul you please give us the name of the person blowing the smoke? Also provide the quote? I wasn’t me, so perhaps I missed this in the discussion. Thanks.
