I've seen posts about the Mauviel 150 and 250 (1.5 and 2.5 mm) lines, and how older Mauviel lines for actual cooking began at 2.0 mm (with thinner pans made mainly for presentation, not cooking). I've also seen literature on old thicker pans up to 3.5 mm, and Julia Child being quoted as saying the ideal thickness is 3.175 mm (1/8 inch).
How do you understand the quality different between a 2.0 mm and a 2.5 mm (and a 1.5 mm) copper pan (I'm assuming everything is tin lined for simplicity)? Is it right to say that 2.0 mm is a minimum thickness for "quality", below which the pan may warp later and not be as even? Unless you are a real professional chef, 2.0 mm should be perfect and probably better than 2.5 or 3.0 mm cookware because it will be lighter and more manageable?
(If you feel the need for a thicker copper pan or pot, another material might also do the job at that point?)
(Original post didn't go through so this is a re-post.)
UPDATE: Trying to collate the various excellent responses to this thread (again all this assumes tin lined copper):
PROS FOR 2.0 MM
- slightly more responsive and heats up slightly faster, an advantage for smaller pots for sauces or mainly for boiling, or saute of vegetables or more delicate fish
- lighter (but not light per se given copper's density) and more convenient
- arguably the minimum thickness to make copper cookware durable and even
- could be better for a home kitchen whose burner cannot heat up thicker copper
PROS FOR 2.5 (or 3.0) MM
- greater heat retention especially for searing and more even, better generally
I'm still honestly wondering whether it's better to just use another pan for higher heat work especially searing meat, and enjoy a lighter skillet or small pot (not applicable to rondeaus etc.)? Maybe I just need to experience it for myself.
by Jen Wheeler | At Christmas time, there are cookies galore, but true dessert lovers still crave something more substantial...