Moving out and I'm looking for a do-it-all pan for my cookware set. I want to be as minimalist as possible. I'm thinking
>10 inch skillet
>One saucier style pan
>One large pot or Dutch oven
>Maybe one smaller sauce pan
Im considering the all clad Essential Pan because it's like a cross between a saucier and a sauce pan (pic). Seems like a great all rounder. But is 4 quarts too big for 2 ppl? Thoughts?
>>7869713
You can cook a little food in a large pan but you cannot do the opposite. My thoughts:
>10 inch skillet
too small. Get a 12" instead. It can do everything the 10" can, and more.
>saucier style pan
Sounds good
>one large pot or Dutch oven
I would suggest both; they're different tools for different jobs. But if you have to go sperg-tier minimalist, then a large enameled dutch oven would suffice
>>essential pan
I'm not a fan of those because the shape makes it difficult to toss food in.
>>4 quarts too big
Nope
>>7869713
>saucier
>skillet
>dutch oven
>10 quart stock pot
>>7869713
4 quarts is way too big for just 2. You're better off getting 2 quarts
Cast Iron skillet, and a non-stick egg pan.
>>7869713
Cast iron skillet, the bigger and the older the better
Carbon steel skillet (for eggs, etc)
Big ass pot for pasta, lobsters
Good quality heavy saucepan
Make sure nothing matches
Get a Falk 28cm rondeau
>>7871762
why? seems like the first reply covered it pretty well
theres not much else to say
>>7871769
^this, except (unless you frequently make sauces), I'd dump the saucier. I've got 2 sizes of le cruset Dutch ovens, a copper Dutch oven like the one featured above, a copper saucier, a carbon steel crepe pan, a full set of all-clad, and a full set of my great great grandmothers cast iron, and honestly I only really use the Dutch oven (large), 12" skillet, and large and small saucepans regularly. Depends on the kind of food you cook I guess.
>>7871799
Oh, and for a "do it all" a sauté pan is hard to beat
>>7869713
12 inch skillet, not 10.
you need at least 1 small pot as well. sauces, etc
combi-cooker is the one to rule them all. Saute, Saucier, and Dutch all in one
>>7869751
there are many practical reasons for preferring a smaller pan over a large pan, you realize this, right?
>>7869863
>>7870037
>cast iron fags like fucking clockwork
begone, poorfags. If you must, a 10 inch plate or skillet is sufficient for anything you would need a cast iron for.
>bigger is better
literally think about your post for 5 seconds
>carbon steel for eggs
???
>>7870037
^this guy doesn't actually cook, I've found out.
>>7870037
>Carbon steel skillet (for eggs, etc)
Why would you not use the cast iron for its quintessential purpose of frying eggs?
Are you one of those reddit fags that can't into shit not sticking?
>>7872882
nonstick is superior for eggs, plain and simple.
>>7871861
I guess I'd rather have a saute pan than a fry pan if it was my only pan, but I wouldn't exactly call it a "do it all" any more than a cast iron pan
remember kids, just because you (sorta) can doesn't mean you should
>>7872863
b-but muh hamboigahs
>>7872882
>but MOMMMMMMYYYY! I TOLD you not to use SOAP on the cast IRONNNNN! it ruins the MAGNETITE!!!!
pic related
>no wok mentioned
chink pan is best pan
>>7869713
I'd get this as a stockpot. Enamel on high carbon steel, relatively non stick but without the weight of cast iron.
4 quarts is nothing.
>>7872902
>OP looking for minimalist, everyday cookware
>this motherfucker posts a pic of his camping setup in a cinderblock pit
does not compute
>>7872947
>he thinks I actually cosplay
no, anon, that was for you, hambeast mcrenfaire
