Holloware Sizes

W

W. Hilditch

Active member
In cast iron wood burning stoves the common eye sizes were 4, 6, and 8 inches diameter. There are also some 3 and 10 inch eyes. All found were in whole inches.

Smoke rings on #3, 4, and 5 skillets are large enough to cover 4” eyes.
Smoke rings on #6 and 7 skillets will cover a 6” eye.
Smoke rings on #8 and 9 skillets will cover a 8” eye.
Depending on the manufacturer, some #10 smoke rings will cover a 10” eye and some won’t’ but 10” eyes were pretty rare.

Most tea pots were made to fit in or over 8”eyes.

Although not exact, I have found the size of the smoke rings and the flat cooking surface in inches pretty well corresponds to the skillet size number for sizes #5 and up. I also believe the holloware manufacturers were all on the same page as far as covering eye sizes and dealing with inches for their size numbers.

I acknowledge Doug’s view that size numbers don’t correlate with sizes, but do you find some common ground/general rules of thumb in the above?

Hilditch
 
Not trying to be flippant, but since I don't cook on a wood stove, I don't worry about it.

What I find irritating to a small degree is when someone says, "I have a 10 inch skillet" when what they really have is a #10 skillet.
 
Last edited:
What has irritated me is when first other manufacturers and then Lodge switched from established size numbers to top inch diameters. The 10 SK suddenly became a 12” skillet. Those trying to cook are interested in the size of the cooking surface not the overall diameter of a skillet. My 14 SK is sold as a 15” skillet but only has a 12” cooking surface. Should be a 12 SK; as my 3 notch 10 SK has a 10” cooking surface and it’s only 33 years old.

Hilditch
 
Thanks for the exposition Hilditch. I like historical info., and the last wood burning stove I saw in use was when I was about 5 years old--sure didn't get any dimensions at that point. The various sizes of pans from the turn of the 20th century have surprised me. My #9 Erie and #10 Favorite Piqua Ware skillets are almost identical in size, and were made about the same time. Both measure about 11 1/2 inches diameter across the top edge, excluding the pouring spouts. Now I need to measure the actual cooking surface, but I think they are similar. Won't part with either of them, but a somewhat larger #10 would be nice to have. I had a #11 Griswold which I sold for personal reasons several years ago and I sure wish I'd had the sense to measure actual cooking surfaces on all my pans and have kept the info. before letting that one go. I didn't foresee happening on this forum 20 years later, or I would have!
 
This thread got me thinking ... what about electric coils? Is it better to use a size where the heat ring is wider than the coil, so that the bottom of the skillet sits flat on the coil? Obviously, either way works, but which is better?
 
SpurgeonH said:
This thread got me thinking ... what about electric coils? Is it better to use a size where the heat ring is wider than the coil, so that the bottom of the skillet sits flat on the coil? Obviously, either way works, but which is better?
Click to expand...

Since electric coils heat primarily via conduction, the more contact between the coils and the pan, the better, I would think.
 
SpurgeonH said:
This thread got me thinking ... what about electric coils? Is it better to use a size where the heat ring is wider than the coil, so that the bottom of the skillet sits flat on the coil? Obviously, either way works, but which is better?
Click to expand...

I don't think it makes enough difference that you would notice it so I don't think there is a "better."
 
First, I agree with Kevin. Theoretically, as air is poor conductor, eliminating that 1/16” layer of air between the burner and the coil would be more efficient. One would then lose the the even heating effects the air provides to balance out the equation a bit.

I think better comes into play when matching a pan size to a burner size as close as possible. Small for small and large for large gives the best results.

Hilditch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top