# Black Fry Pans



## rmullins (Jan 13, 2012)

I am really thinking about getting several black fry pans.

When I visit restaurants I often see a great pile of fry pans after a busy night and was wondering what is the most common size for a full-on bistro-type restaurant like Les Halles, or Bouchon, etc, etc.

To be clear, I know in the home environment a person would want something else for practicality, but if I was planning for setting up a new lunch place what would I want?

Thanks.


----------



## ordo (Mar 19, 2009)

I recently bought a set of frying pans, Ø = 14, 16, 20, 22, 24 cm. Pick:





  








orqwkj.jpg




__
ordo


__
Nov 16, 2012








Most used: 20 and 24 cm. A 26 cm. could be a nice addition.

If I should buy a minimalist set, I would get Ø = 22 and 26 cm.

It also depends on two factors: your stoves and the number of people you're cooking for.

Restaurants like you mention surely have every imagined pans on earth.


----------



## cheflayne (Aug 21, 2004)

For predominant firing work it is dependent of course on menu and style, such as how much a la minute of sauces, but off the top of my head I would say 7", 10", 12". The 12" recommendation could possibly be eliminated based on whether pasta is a menu item or not.


----------



## michaelga (Jan 30, 2012)

a whole lot of 10" pans

cheap and fast.... no one cares in a restaurant if you burn the hell out of a pan... they just care that the food is tasty

your dish-washing capability will dictate how many pans you need... we go thru about ~100 clean pans a night, figure out how fast they come back from the dish-pit and how fast you dirty them... this will equal how many pans you need.


----------



## rmullins (Jan 13, 2012)

OK, this next one is kinda killing me.

After researching several days I think I have finally decided on the DeBuyers Carbone + line for the following reasons;

1.  It's the same as the more expensive Mineral line just without all the branding.

2.  From the forums I have read it seems to be a thicker pan than others in the same general.

3.  It uses rivets to attach the handle to the pan.

4.  Tends to be thicker than most 'black steel' pans including the Matfers.

My only problem at this point is that I am having a hell of a time trying to find someone who sells them.

Anybody have a resource?

-thanks.


----------



## brianshaw (Dec 18, 2010)

I got mine mail order from Kerekes:

*http://www.bakedeco.com/*


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

rmullins said:


> 1. It's the same as the more expensive Mineral line just without all the branding.


Have you ever handled both pans? The finish is completely different. The Mineral line has an incredible finish (never seen carbon steel that were that well finished before), while the Carbon plus is more of your regular rough steel pan finish.


----------



## rmullins (Jan 13, 2012)

I did read that the finish was much better on the 'Mineral' line, but reviewers tended to say things like;

1.  Didn't affect the cooking quality.

2.  The steel pans end up looking pretty rough eventually anyway.

Since I have not actually seen both live and in person which do you prefer to cook with? and is it enough of a difference to justify a $20 difference per pan?

thanks for the input.


----------



## rmullins (Jan 13, 2012)

BrianShaw said:


> I got mine mail order from Kerekes:
> 
> *http://www.bakedeco.com/*


They do not carry the Carbone + fry pans. (not to be confused with the 'ROUND' carbone + fry pans which are much different)

here is their deBuyers list:

http://www.bakedeco.com/dept.asp#.UKzfKuRX3ZA


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

The Mineral pans are heavier and better made than any other carbon steel pan I've seen.  They will not dent as easily as any steel pan I've used and I suspect they won't warp as easily either.  I have three (or is it four?) Minerals in my home kitchen and -- so far at least -- there has been no warping, which is something of a miracle.  Over the years, I've used top of the line and mid line carbon-steel pans from several makers including deBuyer, Matfer and Vollrath. 

Vollrath was my favorite, but I prefer the Minerals for their solidity and the comfort of the handle.  Because the Mineral pans are heavier, they heat more slowly, but more evenly than other, lighter pans -- so, in that sense, a push.  The only negative is the weight, which is not unmanageable.

"Black steel" is carbon steel, but it's also a particular finish and I'm not sure that's what you really want or if it's what you really mean.  Whatever advantages blackness confers, it disappears after the pan is seasoned. 

Once seasoned, all carbon pans look pretty much alike, and if properly seasoned they all develop the same sort of slippery surface.  That doesn't mean one pan isn't different from another. 

Carbone+ and Mineral are not the same pans.  They use the same gauge of steel and the same handle shape.  Otherwise, Mineral are made with a higher quality steel and are shipped without any coating.  However, those things won't make any difference in practice.  Carbone+ have a Lyonnaise rounded side, Minerals have a normal, flat flare. 

Is Mineral's better construction worth the extra money for a commercial establishment compared to Carbone+ or, for that matter, 

Vollrath or Matfer.  Probably not. 

BDL


----------



## ordo (Mar 19, 2009)

Those De Buyer Mineral pans are a dream for any cook. I wish i could get some of them. Nobody traveling to Buenos Aires?


----------



## rmullins (Jan 13, 2012)

Ok, so after a weekend of hardcore cooking in this thing, I think I am in LOVE!

Already seasoned pretty good here is a shot of my pan.





  








photo (3).JPG




__
rmullins


__
Nov 26, 2012


----------



## salparadise (Mar 19, 2012)

I bought a set of three De Buyer Carbone Plus pans about six months ago. I love cooking with them. I got them in 12.5", 9.5", and 8" sizes. The 12.5" gets used the most, and the 8" hardly gets used at all. If I had it to do again I'd consider getting the 12.5" and 11" pans. Even though the sizes seem close, there is a lot of difference between the 12.5 and 9.5" pans. The 9.5 is a good size for cooking a single burger or pork chop, but you can do that in a larger pan just as well. So it seems to me that the reason to buy smaller pans comes down to ease of handling and saving space on the stovetop on the rare occasions that you'd be cooking a single item separately. I suppose this isn't a rare occurrence in restaurants, but at home I am usually trying to fit 3-4 servings into the larger pan. The non-stick quality is pretty amazing once they're well seasoned... which improves over time and use regardless of how you do the initial treatment.





  








debuyerpan.jpg




__
salparadise


__
Nov 26, 2012












  








debuyerpans.jpg




__
salparadise


__
Nov 26, 2012








I bought the smaller pan because it put me over the threshold for free shipping... but I didn't get free shipping. I spoke to cs at kerekes/bakedeco and they grudgingly agreed to refund half of the shipping cost, arguing that it was too heavy for free shipping even though the order did meet the dollar threshold. I never did get the refund, so be forewarned, they're a little bit slippery.


----------



## rmullins (Jan 13, 2012)

salparadise said:


> "....I bought the smaller pan because it put me over the threshold for free shipping... but I didn't get free shipping. I spoke to cs at kerekes/bakedeco and they grudgingly agreed to refund half of the shipping cost, arguing that it was too heavy for free shipping even though the order did meet the dollar threshold. I never did get the refund, so be forewarned, they're a little bit slippery."


Yeah, I decided to go ahead and spend the extra $20 for the Mineral line through Amazon. I looked around at others that were selling the Mineral pans and it seemed no one really had a 'leg-up' on the pricing.

I should buy a Carbon + just to be able to say one way or the other definitely on positive attributes and whether or not the additional $20 is worth it, but I havn't decided yet.

Suffice it to say, I am VERY happy with the Mineral, so far. It's just really fun to work with. Still developing my fore-arm muscles though.


----------

