Warning: Tried both stainless and carbon steel pans side by side last week...

I ran a test at the restaurant cooking the same salmon filet in each. Carbon steel gave way better crust in half the time because it holds heat so much steadier. Stainless just stuck and tore the skin every time. Anyone else find carbon steel worth the extra care?

3 comments

3 Comments

knight.diana21d ago

A buddy of mine @blake_smith tried the same test with chicken thighs and said his carbon steel pan got the skin so crispy it shattered when he bit into it. He nearly cried when he had to scrub the stainless one afterward because the fond was welded on like concrete. Carbon steel's heat control makes all the difference for anyone who cooks protein a lot.

skylercooper21d ago

Alright, 17 years of using stainless steel and I've never once regretted it, here's my hot take. That concrete fond everyone complains about is actually flavor gold if you know how to deglaze properly with a splash of vinegar or wine, no elbow grease required. Carbon steel's heat control is great until you accidentally nuke a thin spot and warp the whole pan, which has happened to two friends of mine who swore by them. Plus I can toss my stainless in the dishwasher or hit it with barkeepers friend without worrying about stripping any seasoning, which is a huge time saver on busy weeknights. For someone like me who cooks one meal and doesn't want to hand-wash a fragile pan, stainless wins every time even if it takes a little more finesse with the protein.

blake_smith22d ago

Man, my carbon steel pan has saved me from so many sad salmon dinners. I used to insist stainless was fine and just accepted the stuck-on mess as "character building." But yeah, the heat retention is no joke. I burned my forearm on the handle last week reaching for salt, totally my fault, but the crust on that fish was perfect. Worth the extra babysitting if you ask me.