Ah yes, your sugar video. I thought it was pretty nice to watch. Think you can do other cooking videos with the pans?

As for their thickness, I don't think the copper is only 0.5mm thick even in the original pans. If the pictures of the Revere Ware blog is true, then that means in total the original pans were only about 1mm thick including the stainless steel and the post68 pans being 0.5mm thick in total. That seems rather thin even for the post68 pans. The 3/4 quart saucepan that my mother uses doesn't seem that thin. But then again it could be due to the size and thickness ratio.

Oh, that I know on the out of country stuff, but how about the stuff from 1968-1999 when they were still made in America? We had two Revere Ware pieces from around the late 80s to early 90s and they work well but they're still thinner than the original pre68 pieces. It makes me think that the overseas stuff is now even thinner. Basically what I mean is, what's the difference between CaliforniaJoseph's Revere Ware from the 60s and the Revere Ware that he has that look like they're from the 70s to 90s? I can see the difference because the pre68 pieces have two screws on the handles and the stuff from the 70s and later have full plastic handles.

Even the most durable nonstick that currently exists out there is bound to get scratches and lose their nonstick properties. It just takes longer to scratch than regular coatings. I would never use Jacques Pepin method to make an omelette in a nonstick pan. A well seasoned carbon steel pan would be another matter.

After reading Kaleokahu's thread on her Rudolph Stanish omelet pan I seasoned an aluminum/copper frying pan, that I got on ebay, per the directions of the Potshop Of Boston and I have made successful omelet using his "standard omelet" method but the eggs stick when I try doing the French Omelet method. I think the vigorous stirring scrapes up too much of the seasoning.

Resurrecting this thread. I think I may have a guess on the copper thickness if this KitchenAid frying pan is any indication. I would say that the total thickness of the base is 5.5 mm. The 4 mm copper is probably the "visible thickness" that the representative measured, and not the "actual thickness". The visible thickness would be the very thin layer of copper that is sort of "folded" out onto the edge to make it look like there's a lot of copper. In reality, it's too thin to make a difference and it's more for aesthetic reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if all, with exceptions, multiclad cookware that uses copper look like this. KitchenAid, Anolon, Martha Stewart and T-Fal seem to be in this category. Possibly even All-Clad or the Calphalon AccuCore. As you all mentioned, copper is heavy and is a very expensive metal.