"D. Gerasimatos" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, Dave Smith <[email hidden]> wrote: >[email hidden] wrote: > >> I considering getting a Viking dual fuel 48" range for the houe were >> building. I've read old posts of Viking's quality is not good. I'm >> wondering if the quality of their products has gone up since the late >> 90's, early 2000's. If the quality is not up there what would you get >> instead? >> > >I had a Viking range. I had a hard time baking things in it. I was >advised to use better baking pans because it was "high efficiency". >Results were better but not great. A few years ago I got a Maytag. Things >that turned out badly in the Viking were excellent in the Maytag, and the >only difference was the range.
This is, sad to say, probably a testament to your cooking ability - or lack thereof. I don't mean that to offend you. However, just as with copper pans, one has to be a skilled cook in order to cook with a lot of heat. Many people buy copper for the looks and/or because they see that top chefs prefer it, but it isn't easy to cook with. It requires skill. It's more so true when using the burners, but it is true of ovens as well.
I cooked in a large commercial kitchen and it's not quite so simple as throwing something in and setting a timer like many people are used to. You can do fabulous things with that equipment that you could never do with the Maytag, but if you aren't searing ahi, broiling meats, or baking soufflees regularly then there is no benefit and in fact a real danger of burning food.
Quoted message said:
Dimitri
While I'm reading this, I'm thinking about a Corvette I once drove. I had only driven ordinary cars. When I put on the brakes and came to stop at the curb, I almost hit the telephone pole and scared my passenger quite badly. Just too darned powerful for the uninitiated. While I think I would love a high-powered stove, I don't kid myself that I can cook like Mario. (I'm not saying that the poster isn't a Mario, tho, but we can't all be that good.) Dee Dee
Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for it.
Sheldon
Exactly!
A true commercial stove will outlast you and your grandchildren, cause the gas company to install a larger line to your house, have your kitchen 140 degrees in no time and set fire to any nearby walls and cabinets.
A commercial style stove will last perhaps 10 years, take a normal gas feed, leave your kitchen relatively cool and only set fire to your wallet.
Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for it.
Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all.
Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for it.
Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all.
Actually they don't put out much more BTUs (if any) than top of the line national brands, and the top of the line national brands have more sophisticated/reliable controls... also far better customer service. I don't want to spend double just so my stove *looks* like a commercial stove... even within brands you can pay three times as much and get no more than appearance... my GE Profile puts out 15,000 BTUs, most commercial style brands don't do any better. The GE Profile costs 1/3 of the GE Monogram and is a far superiour product.
Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for it.
Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all.
Please define "whole lot more BTUs". A quick Google shows that the Viking dual fuel we are discussing puts out 15,000 max. My cheapo Hotpoint puts out 12,000. Sheldon's GE profile puts out 15,000.
When I was looking for a stove, I looked at Consumer Reports. They put the commercial style stoves down at the bottom, based on ease of cleaning, convenience and features. They recommended them if you don't care about price, and want the look. They are also very sturdy, in case you use them for blacksmithing.
"Dan Abel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
(D. Gerasimatos) said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
Sheldon said:
Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for it.
Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all.
Please define "whole lot more BTUs". A quick Google shows that the Viking dual fuel we are discussing puts out 15,000 max. My cheapo Hotpoint puts out 12,000. Sheldon's GE profile puts out 15,000.
When I was looking for a stove, I looked at Consumer Reports. They put the commercial style stoves down at the bottom, based on ease of cleaning, convenience and features. They recommended them if you don't care about price, and want the look. They are also very sturdy, in case you use them for blacksmithing.
Yeah, I like that 'blacksmithing' look. Anyhow, I've learned a lot from this discussion. Thanks. Dee Dee
Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for it.
Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all.
Please define "whole lot more BTUs". A quick Google shows that the Viking dual fuel we are discussing puts out 15,000 max. My cheapo Hotpoint puts out 12,000. Sheldon's GE profile puts out 15,000.
When I was looking for a stove, I looked at Consumer Reports. They put the commercial style stoves down at the bottom, based on ease of cleaning, convenience and features. They recommended them if you don't care about price, and want the look. They are also very sturdy, in case you use them for blacksmithing.
While I certainly agree that the commercial style stoves are overpriced fluff, please do not ever believe anything you read in CR, they are one of the most biased, baseless publications around. Take the time to research the product in question yourself and you'll be far better off.
In article <[email hidden]>, Sheldon <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in >Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all >show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for >it.
Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all.
Please define "whole lot more BTUs". A quick Google shows that the Viking dual fuel we are discussing puts out 15,000 max. My cheapo Hotpoint puts out 12,000. Sheldon's GE profile puts out 15,000.
When I was looking for a stove, I looked at Consumer Reports. They put the commercial style stoves down at the bottom, based on ease of cleaning, convenience and features. They recommended them if you don't care about price, and want the look. They are also very sturdy, in case you use them for blacksmithing.
While I certainly agree that the commercial style stoves are overpriced fluff, please do not ever believe anything you read in CR, they are one of the most biased, baseless publications around. Take the time to research the product in question yourself and you'll be far better off.
Although CR does definitely have an agenda, one thing I like about them is that they are usually pretty straightforward and open about what their agenda is. If you don't agree with their particular agenda in an article, you can usually still pick through the article and find useful information.
As far as doing your own research, where do you go? There's a whole lot of places that are not only biased, but hide their bias. And I have neither the money nor the time to buy 10-20 stoves and try them all out.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (D. Gerasimatos) wrote:
> In article <[email hidden]>, > Sheldon <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in > >Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all > >show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for > >it. > > > Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to > a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an > ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all.
Please define "whole lot more BTUs". A quick Google shows that the Viking dual fuel we are discussing puts out 15,000 max. My cheapo Hotpoint puts out 12,000. Sheldon's GE profile puts out 15,000.
When I was looking for a stove, I looked at Consumer Reports. They put the commercial style stoves down at the bottom, based on ease of cleaning, convenience and features. They recommended them if you don't care about price, and want the look. They are also very sturdy, in case you use them for blacksmithing.
While I certainly agree that the commercial style stoves are overpriced fluff, please do not ever believe anything you read in CR, they are one of the most biased, baseless publications around. Take the time to research the product in question yourself and you'll be far better off.
Although CR does definitely have an agenda, one thing I like about them is that they are usually pretty straightforward and open about what their agenda is. If you don't agree with their particular agenda in an article, you can usually still pick through the article and find useful information.
As far as doing your own research, where do you go? There's a whole lot of places that are not only biased, but hide their bias. And I have neither the money nor the time to buy 10-20 stoves and try them all out.
epinions.com is a good place to peruse unbiased reviews (from actual consumers) of myriad products... as unbiased as a human being is... everyone holds bias. I wouldn't necessarily take the reviews of one or three people as gospel but when there's say twenty reviews one can come away with a fairly accurate opinion of the average normal person.
On 28 Sep 2005 07:19:27 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I considering getting a Viking dual fuel 48" range for the houe were building. I've read old posts of Viking's quality is not good. I'm wondering if the quality of their products has gone up since the late 90's, early 2000's. If the quality is not up there what would you get instead?
Quoted message said:
Maybe it's a fluke, but a friend remodeled her kitchen during the time you've stated and her Viking range has never given her trouble to date and she cooks for a family of 6.
The concern seems to be Viking's oven behavior, not their range quality.
(Crossposts got removed somewhere.)
Thanks for clarifying, but I understood it was the oven.... my friend hasn't had a problem with the cooktop or oven part of hers.
Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all.
Please define "whole lot more BTUs". A quick Google shows that the Viking dual fuel we are discussing puts out 15,000 max. My cheapo Hotpoint puts out 12,000. Sheldon's GE profile puts out 15,000.
One of the distinguishing areas is that on most "commercial-style" ranges the burners are all identical and capable of high power. The cheapos may have ONE high power burner, but the rest are all little guys. For the casual cook this may be ok. For someone who really uses it, the flexibility to move pots or pans anywhere and not have to 'manage' things is really great.
Quoted message said:
When I was looking for a stove, I looked at Consumer Reports. They put the commercial style stoves down at the bottom, based on ease of cleaning, convenience and features. They recommended them if you don't care about price, and want the look. They are also very sturdy, in case you use them for blacksmithing.
CR has always been a laugh when it comes to higher-end products. They are often finicky - sharper tools usually are - but worth it to those who can appreciate them.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Walter Spector" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:
CR has always been a laugh when it comes to higher-end products.
What makes you say that? They'd rate the Honda Civic better than a Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups.
Why not? By any rational standard the Honda Civic is superior to a Lamborghini. The Lamborghini excels in driving very fast and looking good. It isn't reliable, comfortable and probably doesn't start when it is cold out. There is no place to put the groceries or a car seat. Consumer Reports is correct. The honda is an excellent car. The Lamborghini is a very desirable toy for those with too much money.
Cheap plastic knobs? What defines a cheap plastic knob vs. a non-cheap plastic knob? Last time I looked I saw virtually no non-plastic knobs on any car regardless of price (in the "sane" range, I didn't look at "exotics"😉.
Then you haven't been to California. There most of the high end cars are driven by exotic females with plastic knobs.
Cheap plastic knobs? What defines a cheap plastic knob vs. a non-cheap plastic knob? Last time I looked I saw virtually no non-plastic knobs on any car regardless of price (in the "sane" range, I didn't look at "exotics"😉.
Then you haven't been to California. There most of the high end cars are driven by exotic females with plastic knobs.
Sheldon
I was just in CA two weeks ago. I wasn't impressed.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Del Cecchi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
What makes you say that? They'd rate the Honda Civic better than a Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups.
Why not? By any rational standard the Honda Civic is superior to a Lamborghini. The Lamborghini excels in driving very fast and looking good.
But you don't buy a Lambo for practical reasons. CR thinks we should all drive Honda or similar autos.
Calling a Lambo and a Honda both "automobiles" is stretching the definition. A deuce and a half would make a terrible choice as a family car, but it makes a hell of a vehicle for delivering relief supplies in a flood. Consumer reports uses criteria that relate to average person and their use. So cars that foul plugs or don't start in the winter or can't carry the groceries are down rated relative to those that can, whether or not they have real walnut on the dash or can go 200 mph.
I hear the same complaints from the computer geeks every time CR tests computers, and from the audiophiles when they test speakers.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
Pete C. said:
Cheap plastic knobs? What defines a cheap plastic knob vs. a non-cheap plastic knob? Last time I looked I saw virtually no non-plastic knobs on any car regardless of price (in the "sane" range, I didn't look at "exotics"😉.
Then you haven't been to California. There most of the high end cars are driven by exotic females with plastic knobs.
Sheldon
The thing about plastics is that they'll outgas within a decade or so leaving a chalky surface. Ewwwww.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
Pete C. said:
Cheap plastic knobs? What defines a cheap plastic knob vs. a non-cheap plastic knob? Last time I looked I saw virtually no non-plastic knobs on any car regardless of price (in the "sane" range, I didn't look at "exotics"😉.
Then you haven't been to California. There most of the high end cars are driven by exotic females with plastic knobs.
Sheldon
The thing about plastics is that they'll outgas within a decade or so leaving a chalky surface. Ewwwww.
Massaging daily with coco lopez keeps knobs young.
The thing about plastics is that they'll outgas within a decade or so leaving a chalky surface. Ewwwww.
Howdy,
In my experience, that depends on the quality...
I have a Mercedes wagon for nearly 18 years and on the day that it went off to another happy life the interior looked and felt as it did on the day I bought it.
