Tiny kitchen, two burners, one of which is noticeably weaker. Cooking for two most nights, occasionally four. Budget is about 90 total. I keep going back and forth between one big 12 inch carbon steel that does everything, or an 8 inch and a 10 inch so I can run two things at once. Storage is genuinely limited — one drawer.
Two pans, and make the bigger one 10 rather than 12.
A 12 inch pan on a domestic burner has a cold ring around the outside no matter what you do, so you end up cooking on the middle seven inches anyway while heaving around a heavy pan. And with two burners you will constantly want the second one for a sauce, eggs, or reheating something while the main pan is busy.
8 and 10 nest in one drawer. A 12 does not fit in most drawers at all, which is the practical thing people forget until it lives on the counter forever.
The cold ring point settles it. I had been imagining even heat across the whole surface, which is clearly optimistic on my hob.
Also a 12 inch carbon steel full of food is genuinely heavy at the end of a long handle. Matters more than it sounds.
If you go two pans, spend the money unevenly. A decent 10 inch carbon steel plus a cheap 8 inch beats two mid-priced pans. The small one mostly does eggs and toasting spices and does not need to be good.
Plan around the weak burner explicitly. Put the small pan on it permanently and stop expecting it to sear anything. Trying to make a weak burner do a big pan's job is how people end up believing they cannot cook.
@soloseat_sana · last yr. · 2 replies
Counterpoint for the four-people nights: browning meat in a small pan means doing it in three batches, and by batch three the fond is scorched. If you cook for four more than occasionally I would take the big pan and accept batching on everything else. It comes down to which annoyance you meet more often.
Reply
Report
@chainwax_chloe · last yr.
Fair, and I would not argue with it if the drawer were bigger. With one drawer I still think 10 plus 8 is the more livable answer.
Reply
Report