Help! Can't decide between the 2 quart and the 3 quart. I can only buy one, as I'm on a budget.
778505
Hello. If you can afford the 3, get it...if the other might be too small, why take a chance? You'll be able to use it more! By the way, ALL-CLAD "rocks"! You'll never be sorry for selecting that maker!!! Professional cook-ware!
1758336
I personally feel that the 2 quart will more then handle reasonable servings for two people. That being said, I have found that I tend to over fill the pot with the 2 quart and wished I had a 3 quart so I would not have to worry about reaching the max. I should also add that having only to pay $9.99 - $11.99 for the 2 quart it was a simple no-risk purchase. I do plan on getting a bigger slow cooker with more control in the near future. The 2 quart has been a great little no-frills tool.
1620336
I am not sure. I believe the 2 small ones are 1 quart and the middle one is 2 quarts. I gave it to my sister in law as a gift because it turned out to be too big for just the 2 of us.
1817682
Cooking for 4 people, the 6 quart is adequate. I cook for two and it gives me leftovers. But if you plan to cook for 6 or 8 people, I'd get the 8 quart. Or buy the 6 quart and when you have more $$ get the larger size. I wrote an extensive review at ChezBettaydotCom.
2208986
I have the 9 quart so I don't really know, but the 9 quart is not crazy big, and I am glad I got the bigger one. I am really happy with it, steams 3 items really fast and delicious. And the stainless is beautiful!
683158
Yup. I have an old 4 quart Revere Ware one which is nice but too small for most published recipes. 6 quart is fairly standard.
1758335
I personally feel that the 2 quart will more then handle reasonable servings for two people. That being said, I have found that I tend to over fill the pot with the 2 quart and wished I had a 3 quart so I would not have to worry about reaching the max.I should also add that having only to pay $9.99 - $11.99 for the 2 quart it was a simple no-risk purchase. I do plan on getting a bigger slow cooker with more control in the near future. The 2 quart has been a great little no-frills tool.
212442
I do not have sufficient information to answer one way or the other... I should add that this size is advertised for a 6 quart unit.
2007909
Unless storage space is an issue, I would go with the 8 quart. The extra space is always handy when cooking for larger crowds - and the large basket can be used to steam crab legs, etc.
81762
I purchased a 1 1/2 quart and a 2 quart saucepan in this series. Both are extremely useful.
1758337
The 2 quart is perfect for 2! It is only my husband and me. We always have left overs.
1817721
I have one that I just put in storage and have the box, I can check later if you could wait. It looks like about 3 quarts or so, seems roomy enough. I bought it and never thought I needed the all in one cooker to go with it so waiting to order that. I can check soon for you!
1740859
From researching this model, and the other more expensive 6003, this would be perfect for your needs. But for some intense frying the 6003 would be a better option. It is one quart larger and has more power. This model is advertised for soups and steaming.
207080
It does not say quarts on this one...just 3 1/2..so perhaps it is smaller..can't imagine why else it would be so much less...I paid 239 for mine and it was worth it ...a really great pot!!
2014449
Jaycelyn this was for the 6 quart NOT the 4 1/2 quart bowl. you can find both cheaper on Amazon. The also have them at Kohl's but they are more expensive. I hope this helps if you have any other questions, feel free to ask, Dana
942099
If you do not have a STAINLESS STEEL pot, you will want to get a 24 qt or bigger pot. Do not buy the cheap one. Buy one that you can use for many things, with a thick bottom.
157126
I just dumped 8 cups (= 2 quarts) into the Scan Pan and it just started overflowing. So I have concluded that one quart is simmer-able; two quarts would be quite disasterous in the kitchen. We love our scan pan and use it for 90% of our cooking. - amy l peterson