apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time


New From All-Clad: The All-Clad Slow Cooker

2008_02_19-All-Clad.jpg

We're pretty happy with our $40 Rival slow cooker. It makes lovely chicken stock, pork roast, and tender curry.

But we just about fell over when we saw this new slow cooker from All-Clad...

 
 

2008_02_19-All-Clad2.jpg

Yes, yes, we know that All-Clad is expensive - but they make things with such style! We've talked about why All-Clad pots and pans are so expensive, and we really love the few pieces that we own.

This slow cooker boasts the very longest cooking time of any slow cooker - 26 hours! This is 16 hours longer than the KitchenAid slow cooker. It also holds 6 1/2 quarts of food - plenty for roasting or stewing two chickens or a huge pot roast.

The main draw, we admit, is its shininess, All-Clad name, and enormous size. Its basic functions - warm, low and high settings, as well as timing functionality - are all to be had in less pricy models. But oh it's so pretty!

All-Clad slow cooker is and Amazon.

Check out the best outlet for All-Clad pieces too - Cookware & More.

What do you think? Would you pay $150 for a slow cooker?

Tags

Appliances - small, Cookware & Tools, slow cooker, All-Clad, Crockpot

Related Links

Share

Comments (16)

Oh, I must have this for things like puerco pibil!

posted by Kathryn Hill on 2008-02-19 18:18:25
view Kathryn Hill's profile

Hell yeah I'd pay 150 for a slow cooker. That's cheaper than some All Clad pots, and much cheaper than a similarly sized item from Le Creuset.

posted by cakekick on 2008-02-19 18:28:10
view cakekick's profile

No, I wouldn't pay $150 just to have a prettier slow-cooker. My Rival works just fine.

posted by amylou61 on 2008-02-19 18:50:55
view amylou61's profile

I think this is silly. If I had $150 to spend on a single item of cookware, I would absolutely not spend it on a crock pot. Even if money were not an issue for me, still not a chance, on sheer principle.

Stuff like this is for brand groupies. It would take a lot of evidence for me to believe that this is any functional improvement over a $40 model (not to mention a $100 improvement). If you're a big All-Clad fan, and you spend $150 on it, of course you're going to love it (you had better, cause it cost $150). I don't know who else would buy this.

I'm not talking about their pans/pots here, but people take the All-Clad thing way too far (as with other brands): measuring cups, spoons/utensils, etc.

posted by renata on 2008-02-19 18:53:32
view renata's profile

I would buy it for someone else as a gift, and probably hope someone would get me one too.

posted by evamae on 2008-02-19 19:02:49
view evamae's profile

I agree with amylou and renata. My $40 Rival works just great...why would I spend $110 more when I don't need to?

posted by alyssazor on 2008-02-19 19:24:27
view alyssazor's profile

I did pay $150 for this slow cooker and I love it. It's size was the biggest draw for me as opposed to a more inexpensive model. This was the only slow cooker of this size- the fact it is all-clad only made it a little more attactive. Kitchen equipment is expensive- I agree with cakekick (above), compared to a Le Creuset piece-it's not so bad!

posted by Katia on 2008-02-19 19:35:02
view Katia's profile

I have a 6.5 quart Rival SmartPot slow cooker, and it works well for me. I got it on sale for $40. It isn't perfect, but I don't think I'd pay another $110 for a slight upgrade unless I suddenly decided to start cooking recipes that take a whole day.

posted by Julie on 2008-02-19 20:24:20
view Julie's profile

Except, Katia, the Le Creuset is more expensive because it's functionally better than a cheap pot. Even the original post describes this as the virtually identical to its less expensive rivals (please forgive the pun), just shinier and with the All-Clad name.

My slow cooker lives in a cabinet. I'd rather spend the extra $110 where it counts.

posted by Leslie in Portland on 2008-02-19 21:44:21
view Leslie in Portland's profile

Yes! Well, I actually got this as a gift, but I would definitely pay $150. First, its huge - it can render the biggest pork butt imaginable into tender, tasty deliciousness. And I love the long timer, since my previous crock pot kept shutting off before I was ready. It has nice, even heating rather than scorched hot spots (okay maybe my previous slow cooker was decades old). Its pretty. Its sturdy. We use ours all the time. Makes a great wedding or shower gift (if you're feeling generous...).

posted by CDR on 2008-02-19 22:45:00
view CDR's profile

actually I have found the all clad slow cooker on sale at bloomingdales for $60. It's perfect for slow cooking anything and it's a beauty! :)

posted by sugarpond on 2008-02-20 00:05:22
view sugarpond's profile

You know, I think my rival crock pot has the longest cooking time of any: I can leave it on FOREVER! I understand the appeal of the design, for sure, but the fact that you're even limited by a timer is stupid. I think the appeal of a crock pot is it's simplicity. Mine has a simple dial with "Off, Warm, Low, and High" and I think got it for about 25 bucks at Wal-Mart. Sure it's got country style florals all over, but it serves a purpose and serves it well.

posted by emilyandharry on 2008-02-20 11:32:04
view emilyandharry's profile

Nope. Not unless I get some sort of windfall that leaves me with money to burn. My old slow cooker gets the job done.

posted by Aldyth on 2008-02-20 11:58:08
view Aldyth's profile

Money to burn or not, I'd rather spend the hypothetical $110 on great ingredients for the slow-cooker.

posted by SJO on 2008-02-20 12:13:04
view SJO's profile

asthetics do matter to some people- Rivals tend to be not so pretty. I think we should all be entitled to our own opinions. Maybe $150 is not that big of a deal to some people, I don;t happen to be one of them, but if I could afford it- I would buy it!

posted by lsingl2 on 2008-02-20 13:31:44
view lsingl2's profile

If you love this one, you'll keel over when you see the new one offered exclusively at Williams-Sonoma. I have been coveting it for quite some time. The insert is aluminum so you can brown directly in the insert and then stick it into the slow cooker. Sooo cool, but goes for $250! ouch!

http://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/sku8260341/index.cfm?pkey=xsrd0m1%7C16%7C%7C%7C0%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7Cslow%20cooker&cm%5Fsrc=SCH

posted by foodiegirl on 2008-02-20 14:03:43
view foodiegirl's profile