If there is such a thing as an erotic wok, All-Clad has made it.

Perhaps I'm being excessive, but it's hard to be a foodie-kitchen junkie and not be at least a little turned on by this Mercedes of a pan.

It's even shaped like a breast, albeit one with an aluminum core clad in stainless steel so flawless its rounded bottom begs to be touched. And with 5 1/2 pounds of heft behind it, this is a wok that demands serious handling.

That's what I was thinking when I pulled the $200 All-Clad wok (launched last month) out of the box. Like so many of the company's pans, this wok is no cheap date. But is it just a pricey tease or a pan with the beauty and brawn to put out a good meal?

To find out, I pitted it against two other comparably sized woks -- a flat-bottomed hard-anodized aluminum Calphalon model ($80) and a no-name cheap round stainless steel model (about $20).

First, a wok primer. Traditional woks have round bottoms, a design intended for concave burners. Since few American stoves have such burners, many companies also offer flat-bottomed woks. So-called wok rings are used to stabilize round woks on flat burners.

Neither is ideal. Even with a wok ring, round woks on flat burners end up with a hot centers and cool sides. Ideally, the whole thing should be scorching hot. Flat-bottom woks have similar problems dispersing heat evenly up the sides. (Since I have flat burners, I used wok rings with the cheap model and the All-Clad.)

Metal matters, too. Cheap models (including the one I tested) usually are made from thin sheets of stainless steel. This conducts heat poorly, creating hot spots and uneven cooking.

Aluminum conducts heat well, which is why the Calphalon model is made from a thick sheet of it. But sticking is a problem. Some have nonstick coating, but this isn't wise. Woks are intended for high-heat cooking, which creates issues for nonstick coatings.

Most high-end pans blend these approaches, bonding a layer of aluminum (or copper) between sheets of stainless steel. This provides the superior cooking surface of stainless with even heating. The All-Clad wok is made this way.

My first test was simple. I filled each wok with water and cranked up the burners. With a laser thermometer, I tested the temperature inside each pan to check whether it was distributing heat evenly up the sides.

The cheap model wasn't. The temperature varied by nearly 100 degrees in some spots. The Calphalon did much better. No spot differed by more than 20 degrees. But the All-Clad won, with no more than 15 degrees between spots.

Next up, how evenly each wok cooks. For this test, I fried cubes of silken tofu in sesame oil. I placed four tofu cubes in the center of each wok. A quality wok would brown them evenly.

My cheap model was a disaster. Because the wok is so thin, it was difficult to control the temperature. After 1 minute, two cubes were nicely browned while the others were still pale.

The Calphalon model heated nicely, but sticking was a serious problem. So much so that it destroyed one of my cubes. The three that survived were evenly browned, but a 25 percent loss in a meal isn't acceptable.

Once again, the All-Clad shone. The heat was even and there was little sticking. Most importantly, all four cubes browned perfectly.

Final test: a chicken stir fry. Only the All-Clad made it to this round. I'd already sent the cheap model to the yard sale pile, and I've cooked with the Calphalon enough to know it wouldn't do well with this recipe (a potential sticking nightmare).

Again, the All-Clad was a delight. Spacious enough to handle two pounds of sliced chicken breasts, several pounds of vegetables and three cups of sauce. It browned the chicken perfectly and easily held whatever temperature I liked.

Two complaints. First, not only don't the supposedly "stay cool" stainless handles stay cool, they get piping hot. Second, the wire rack that hangs on the side (for placing cooked foods on) is badly designed. My chicken kept falling through the overly wide gaps.

These aren't deal breakers (an oven mitt cures the handle issue, and few people ever use the racks), but for $200 I don't expect such sloppiness. Still, this remains an exceptional wok that outperformed its competitors by enough of a margin to justify its price to me.

So much so that I intend to continue my affair with this lovely piece of cookware and purchase my test model.

___

asap columnist J.M. Hirsch covers food, diet and nutrition for the AP. E-mail him at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.