Yeah, it is funny. OP seemed peeved at my use of the generic term, so I explained.
Would it inspire confidence in you if an airline pilot referred to her plane’s aerilon as a “spoiler”? Or someone who refers to an aerodynamic feature on his car as “flaps”? You’d probably understand the meaning, but they would be incorrect usages.
OK replying to myself here. GE refers to the circles that heat up my pans on my induction stove as “Elements.”
The manual for my previous, glass top radiant electric refers to them as “Surface Units.”
As for “hobs” and “burners” - well, Thank Dog my University employer has a library that subscribes to the Oxford English Dictionary Online; after a tortuous online login and search process, the plot thickens:
I was actually going to response that I am now calling them “heat elements”. I used to call them burners many many years ago, but of course, burners are inaccurate for anything without a flame (burning what?)
Thanks. Good to know. I have recently moved from the 3.0 mm DeBuyer carbon steel (not copper) to the 2.0 mm Made-In carbon steel pan. The Made-In pan is much lighter and easier to use. The only concern I had at the time is… will it warp? Luckly, it has not yet and I have had it for a few months. So it is good to hear your 1.5-2.0 mm copper pan is staying flat.
I used to have a thin 1.5mm oval fish pan, too. The only reason I acquired it was that I couldn’t locate an extra fort version (except a Matfer bi-metal that was the usual 2.3mm thick or $375). Then a kind and dear friend found a 3mm tinned one for me. Having cooked in both, IMO, it’s superior in every way. It’s large enough to overhang even an 8" hob, so the thickness does affect evenness.
For these pans, for which tossing is not an issue, heavy handling weight matters less. Of course, if the cook can’t lift it without difficulty, all bets are off. If that were me, I’d go with thick aluminum.
My theme wasn’t exactly precision in language. If anything, it was imprecision. And the point still holds, despite my misspelling. But congratulations on pointing out my spelling error–you really got me.
Today I tripped over two relatively nice copper pieces in an “antique” store. Both were nominal 1.8-2mm The first was a hammered Ruffoni tin-lined tall rondeau, in the same style as the ubiquitous swelled stockpots. It and its lining were in very good condition, except for, mysteriously, the cover’s lining was shot.
The second piece was a medium-large hammered gratin. It appeared to be the same thickness with fresh tin, and the hammering pattern was a match to the rondeau. However, on closer inspection, there was no Ruffoni mark; what there was, was “Gastro, Silver Lined”.
If my own silvered pieces are typical, their linings discolor with use. This piece appeared to be completely unused, because the lining was uniformly bright.
Anyone who might be interested is welcome to PM me, and I’ll put you in touch with the seller.
Update on my thin, inexpensive copper ware: I got back two pieces I had retinned. One Ruffoni pot and one Baumalu pan. The retinner commented that both pieces were authentic. After 10 years of almost daily use in my home, the tin lining had worn through, but there were no structural deformations such as bowing. The retinner told me that they were solid pieces to cook in. Both are 1.5 - 2 mm in depth of the copper-tin walls and bottom.
I got them, and the rest of my copperware, used or at discount stores in the US 10 years ago – mainly TJMaxx. For those who do not care about top name brands, and do not care to use French manufacturing or advertising terms to describe their cookware, I encourage everyone to try the thin-walled tin-copper cookware. It is wonderful to cook in. And affordable.
I now return to smugly contemplating my uncluttered kitchen