Thread Number: 68228  /  Tag: Small Appliances
Slow Cookers
[Down to Last]

automaticwasher.org's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 909581   12/4/2016 at 11:01 (446 days old) by Liberatordeluxe (Chelmsford, United Kingdom)        

Never owned a slow cooker but wanted to know if they ever get to boiling point? Has anyone ever steamed a Christmas pudding in one as WELL?




Post# 909584 , Reply# 1   12/4/2016 at 11:56 (446 days old) by luxflairguy (Wilmington NC)        

The answer is yes!  You'll need a big SC.  You need to preheat the exterior for about 15 minutes without the crock.  Fill the crock with water as hot as you can get it from the tap or use your tea kettle to preheat crock. Dump water.   You need to find some sort of trivet to fit the crock that will elevate the pudding out of the water.  I used a well washed tuna can.  Place pudding container on can, fill with water to barely touching the pudding pan. the lid needs to fit well or if the pudding is alittle high, tent with foil.  Hope this helps!  G


Post# 909587 , Reply# 2   12/4/2016 at 12:30 (446 days old) by Michaelman2 (Atlanta, GA)        
Great suggestion/idea

Lux, this is a fantastic idea! So glad I read you ur reply to the post.

Post# 909593 , Reply# 3   12/4/2016 at 13:19 (446 days old) by cuffs054 (MONTICELLO, GA)        

great idea. I want to try making a pudding this year.

Post# 909597 , Reply# 4   12/4/2016 at 13:47 (446 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
Some do, some don't

panthera's profile picture

Depends on the model. I've seen very good steamed puddings come out of Rival Brand Vintage Crockpots (no automatic shift).

You'd definitely want to stay away from one which has the automatic shift function, unless you can manually select the highest temperature.


Post# 909606 , Reply# 5   12/4/2016 at 15:25 (446 days old) by luxflairguy (Wilmington NC)        

All I have are old round manual pots.  One has a pot roast in it as we write!


Post# 909609 , Reply# 6   12/4/2016 at 15:32 (446 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Original "crock pots"

launderess's profile picture
Came out of using the heating power pretty much equal to a light blub , so am gobsmacked some actually "boiled".

Have read various online warnings about preparing certain foods in slow cookers. Apparently there are/were concerns because temperatures never reach high enough levels to kill certain bacteria.


Post# 909615 , Reply# 7   12/4/2016 at 15:47 (446 days old) by brisnat81 (Brisbane Australia)        

If you leave them on long enough they'll all boil on high.

My 1970's model when its full of a piece of Frozen Corned Beef and water will come to a fast simmer/low boil within 8-9 hours. From memory Its about 180watts

The Modern version with the same payload will come to a fast simmer/low boil in about 7.5/8.5 hours.

By boil I mean rolling bubbles around the edges and if you stir within a couple of minutes you'll have rolling bubbles around the edges again.

Is the pudding you're looking to put in there precooked and you want to steam it to reheat or is it raw and you want to cook it? If its just to reheat it'd be fine, if its to cook it definitely need a long time to ensure that its not doughy or floury.


Post# 909624 , Reply# 8   12/4/2016 at 16:32 (446 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture
>Came out of using the heating power pretty much equal to a light blub , so am gobsmacked some actually "boiled".

>Have read various online warnings about preparing certain foods in slow cookers. Apparently there are/were concerns because temperatures never reach high enough levels to kill certain bacteria.

I've read warnings about older slow cookers potentially not running hot enough. I've even seen a recommendation that people test their old slow cooker. I can't remember the test suggested, but the one I saw basically involved heating water. After a certain length of time, the water should be at least a certain temperature.

Supposedly modern slow cookers run hotter than many vintage designs, and so there is the inevitable suggestion that one should just "upgrade" to something. This upgrade, of course, will also bring some other upgrades, such as environmental impact to make a new slow cooker, increase in the trade deficit since we no longer have the sophisticated technology required to make a Crock Pot, and possibly issues with bad wiring and poisonous glaze (probably more of an issue with the cheapest, no name slow cookers).

I can say from experience with vintage slow cookers that they seemed to have varied in heating power. I've got a couple of old ones from the 70s when the technology was, er, hot, and everyone was making a slow cooker. One definitely seems run hotter and heat faster.


Post# 909625 , Reply# 9   12/4/2016 at 16:38 (446 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture
Interesting point, but I think one could actually see the change of power of slow cookers in thrift shops, just by comparing the wattage of a vintage slow cooker to a modern slow cooker of the same brand/size. It's easiest to compare with Crock Pots, since the brand has always been there, and so many were made. Goodwill might easily have 1970s Crock Pot sitting right beside a 5 year old Crock Pot.


Post# 909630 , Reply# 10   12/4/2016 at 17:32 (446 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

I remember the rep from Rival talking to us in a housewares staff seminar about the people who made the crockery liners. They had been making the things for decades as flower pots etc., along with that brown drip primitive dinnerware and could not understand the need for them to be really round to fit into the metal jackets of the cookers. He said they had huge piles of rejects out of every shipment but the crap was so cheap, it was not worth fighting about or sending back as rejects. Apparently the ones with removable liners did not have the same radiant heat exposure on the outside of the crock as the ones with non-removable liners and the originals with non-removable liners tended to brown things better, or so I was told by customers, not that anybody liked washing the damn things.

 

Outside of one quart Corning Ware saucepans, Crock Pots were just about the cheapest wedding presents, when they went on sale, that could be bought at department stores. It was sorta sad to see young couples enter the department with two armloads of cheap crap to return. It was a testament to their having invited a lot of people who really did not care.


Post# 909632 , Reply# 11   12/4/2016 at 18:27 (446 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture
>Apparently the ones with removable liners did not have the same radiant heat exposure on the outside of the crock as the ones with non-removable liners and the originals with non-removable liners tended to brown things better, or so I was told by customers, not that anybody liked washing the damn things.

I had one Crock Pot that I dumped partly because washing it promised to be a pain to wash. That wasn't the only factor--it also needed a lid, and I frankly got tired of trying to find a lid would fit, and so in a moment of "let's get rid of some clutter!" that Crock Pot went bye bye to Goodwill. Maybe someone at Goodwill lucked out, finding a match for the lid left over from a Crock Pot that went to the big Kitchen Counter in the Sky.

Right now, I have no dishwasher, so it's all hand wash. But thinking long term, I want stuff that can go into a dishwasher. If it can't go into a dishwasher, I want some compelling value in the product to justify the pain of hand washing. Past that, even with hand washing in mind, removable inserts may be easier to deal with.


Post# 909635 , Reply# 12   12/4/2016 at 18:39 (446 days old) by brisnat81 (Brisbane Australia)        

Hi Tom,

I agree with that. Mum has a plastic lime green exterior crock pot that they got as a wedding present from 1974.

The Element is glued to the outside of the crock and then there is a layer of Fibreglass insulation between the crock and the plastic exterior. The outside of it gets barely warm after 8 hours. Its not hard to wash, you just have to be careful, you fill it full of water when you finish cooking and let it soak on the sink, then you can usually just wipe it out. I find it brings things up to temp at about the same speed as the higher wattage new version compared to its removable crocked cousin from the 1970's.

I've got a Burnt Orange metal model with a removable crock and there is no insulation at all. The outside of it gets too hot to touch. The modern Sunbeam one is the same, there's no insulation between the Metal layers.

Friends of ours have a modern rectangular Breville crock pot. The crock is metal and lined with Teflon, the idea is that you can brown meat in the crock on the stove and then put it directly into the crockpot to finish cooking.

She loves it, but because I already have three, I cant justify yet another slowcooker :)


Post# 909637 , Reply# 13   12/4/2016 at 18:46 (446 days old) by luxflairguy (Wilmington NC)        

Power ratings!  I've just trolled Ebay and found that even older models were anywhere between 150 watts and 200!  Some larger ones were 150 on low and 200 on high.  

The one I'm using today is 180 watts on high.

I've been learning a lot about SC and Miele today!


Post# 909649 , Reply# 14   12/4/2016 at 19:49 (446 days old) by rp2813 (The Big Blue Bubble)        

rp2813's profile picture

A 6-quart Nesco "Full Range" cooker can be used as a slow cooker, and the enameled insert is light as a feather compared to the ceramic Crock Pot types.


Post# 909658 , Reply# 15   12/4/2016 at 20:14 (446 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
IIRC the warnings about tempearture and bacteria

launderess's profile picture
Comes from recipes and or persons that leave things in slow cookers for hours upon hours such as overnight or while away all day. Theory seems to be that temperature will never rise enough to keep the nasty things from growing and or kill them off. That and the low temperature/moist environment might just encourage things to grow.

Our mother never was sized by the whole "slow cooker craze" so never saw such things growing up outside of advertisements. In fact none of one's female relatives did either. By the time one moved out into one's own digs didn't see the purpose.

Interestingly some microwaves of the 1980's or so had "simi-cook" feature. That is the microwave would "simmer cook" a meal which was supposed to be same as slow cooking. This usually involved inserting a thermometer probe into the food being cooked, then pushing a few buttons. The oven took care of things from there.

All these things and features started popping up in the 1970's and 1980's as more and more women began entering the workforce. Women's magazines, appliance adverts, etc.. were all full of ideas, recipes, gadgets, appliances and so forth that were supposed to allow a working wife and mother to still get a hot meal on table. This was probably particularly true of men like "Mr. Red Foreman" that didn't want their wives working (I wear the pants in this house was the line one heard being shouted about often enough), but gave in long as things didn't slip on the home front.




This post was last edited 12/04/2016 at 20:47
Post# 909661 , Reply# 16   12/4/2016 at 20:31 (446 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture
My mother never really got into slow cookers, either. She had one--a West Bend Lazy Day (one of those with a brownish enamel steel pot). She used it for making vegetable soup, and I cannot remember her doing anything else with it. She didn't even make the soup stock used in the vegetable soup in the slow cooker, preferring to use the stove. Simmering time for the soup was only a few hours as I recall--not all day. The soup did turn out nicely (again, as I recall). I recall my mother making soup at least once in my grandmother's kitchen, using the stove, and it wasn't as good as what she could do in our kitchen with the slow cooker.

Post# 909663 , Reply# 17   12/4/2016 at 20:41 (446 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture
I've wondered if energy costs didn't help fuel slow cooker sales in the 70s. (Imagined sales pitch: "this slow cooker cooks dinner, using only as much power as a light bulb!") I also recall having heard that there was a sort of return to basics mentality, at least in some circles, and a technology that did long, slow simmering might have been appealing.

I know I've seen Sunbeam electric skillets that had a removable ceramic insert. I've wondered if those weren't influenced by the slow cooker craze. In a way, that skillet idea seems like it would appeal to many buyers in that one base appliance can be used for a wide range of cooking activiities from frying to gently simmering soup. The thermostatic control is also nice in that it guarantees a more reliable temperature than a slow cooker that has a weak heater that heats constantly when powered.


Post# 909664 , Reply# 18   12/4/2016 at 20:41 (446 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
Re West Bend Lazy Day

We had one too, but Mother and Grandmother used the Mirro Matic Pressure cooker much more often.

Post# 909666 , Reply# 19   12/4/2016 at 20:52 (446 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
1970's brings three things to mind

launderess's profile picture
Stagflation, the "Earth" movement, the economy, and high energy prices.

As a child then one had little direct worry about such things. I mean one heard about them on the news, but since one didn't actually have to work/pay bills....

Yes, there was a "return to nature/basics" movement in the 1970's; but our Dad wasn't having any of that "Hippy-Dippy" nonsense in his house either. Closest we got was that horrible Quaker "natural" cereal an aunt either purchased for us or got our mother to buy. It was like eating cardboard with milk..... We kids did try to mount a protest, but that was something else that didn't fly in Big Daddy's house. *LOL*

Now a pressure cooker our Mother did have; it was from Presto IIRC and got used often.


Post# 909671 , Reply# 20   12/4/2016 at 21:43 (446 days old) by luxflairguy (Wilmington NC)        

Oh you kids!  You've given me a laugh.  My parents got married in Jan. 1946.  One of their gifts was an "EverHot" pot.  Yes, an early SC.  It was yellow with a black interior and a tin lid.  There were 3 prongs in the side of the pot with a swinging kind of gate.  Low was prongs 1 & 2, for high you swung the gate over against prong one and plugged the cord into 2 & 3.  She made lots of baked beans in that pot.  It was one of only 4 countertop appliances she ever had.  The others were her Kenmore waffle maker, GE electric skillet, toaster and Hamilton Beach mixer.  All of them were still there and working when we moved her to a care facility in 1990.  The HB I still have in a special place.  Of note, too is that my Grandmother Bushman dies in 1973, leaving Gramps alone.  We got him a SC for Christmas that year and it was one of the most favorite gifts ever!   It's the one I used today.  Ugly orange with a permanent liner, but it's still a keeper!  Greg


Post# 909673 , Reply# 21   12/4/2016 at 21:46 (446 days old) by Xraytech (S.W. Pennsylvania, near Pittsb)        

xraytech's profile picture
Growing up my mother had 2 slow cookers, a 3.5 qt Rival and a 4 qt rectangular West Bend
She used them fairly often for spaghetti sauce, chili, barbecued ham, roast beef, pork and sauerkraut

Both were wedding gifts in 1984


  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 2         View Full Size
Post# 909677 , Reply# 22   12/4/2016 at 22:52 (446 days old) by rp2813 (The Big Blue Bubble)        

rp2813's profile picture

I limited myself to removable inserts until I saw this thing and had to have it.  Since I didn't have a SC smaller than 6-quarts, that justified the purchase.


  View Full Size
Post# 909696 , Reply# 23   12/5/2016 at 07:02 (445 days old) by LVbearAM (Henderson, NV)        
Can't Live Without My Crock Pot

My Crock Pot (an electric six-quart with electronic controls) is an indispensable part of my kitchen. The other night, I made a delicious pot roast; and cooked potatoes for mashing on Thanksgiving. The Crock Pot also makes my partner happy. On the days when there's a WWE pay-per-view event, I cook up a big batch of chili. With raw onions (and the sautéed onions I add to the chili itself, along with saltine crackers, Kevin watches his favorite wrestlers fight to the finish with a tasty meal. I'm not a big wrestling fan, but count me as a slow cooker booster!

Post# 909712 , Reply# 24   12/5/2016 at 09:06 (445 days old) by Artcurus (Odessa)        

use of these, you'll never go back to a regular crockpot again

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-SUNBEAM-...


Post# 909741 , Reply# 25   12/5/2016 at 12:59 (445 days old) by rp2813 (The Big Blue Bubble)        

rp2813's profile picture

I picked up a similar Sunbeam item a while back, but I don't think it was ever intended to be used for deep frying.  It has a single handle and of course lacks a removable insert.  Since the liner is aluminum, there may be issues with acidic ingredients.  I bought it for jobs that a 6-quart Nesco is too big for, but I've yet to find a reason to use it for anything, so it may get re-homed at some point.


Post# 909784 , Reply# 26   12/5/2016 at 18:21 (445 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        
there may be issues with acidic ingredients

lordkenmore's profile picture
I have heard some argue that any metal pan will react to some degree. Someone here said he could detect a slight different between stainless steel and ceramic or enameled iron. IIRC. Thus the non-reactive slow cookers might be appealing, at least for some, particularly for something that has long simmering time.

Post# 909793 , Reply# 27   12/5/2016 at 19:28 (445 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Wait, I told a lie.

launderess's profile picture
Actually do have a slow cooker, well at least in theory.

Mother Dear gave me a Dazey combination deep fryer/slow cooker as a Christmas gift one of the first years after moving out. Didn't come with the ceramic liner, and one hasn't used the deep fryer in ages so totally forgot about the thing.

Apparently they are now highly collectible and sought after.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dazey-Chefs-Pot-...


Post# 909844 , Reply# 28   12/6/2016 at 05:30 (444 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture
I just learned a few days ago that one should not prepare kidney beans in a crock pot without boiling them on the stovetop for a few minutes first....apparently they have a toxin that's deactivated by the boiling water!

I have 3 crock pots myself...my mother's old 1970's red round Rival crockpot with non-removable liner, a newer round one with removable liner and one large oval one with removable liner (I roast a ham in it sometimes...so tender).

I've seen recipes for cakes "baked" in the crock pot.


Post# 909847 , Reply# 29   12/6/2016 at 05:46 (444 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA)        
Crock Pots

mrb627's profile picture
I currently have 3 slow cookers. Next to my coffee maker, they are the most used small appliance in my kitchen.

I have made cakes in the slow cooker, but they are the 'Lava' variety. Spooned into a bowl with a scoop of ice cream and eaten hot. Hardest part is smelling it while waiting for it.

Malcolm


Post# 909868 , Reply# 30   12/6/2016 at 09:13 (444 days old) by Xraytech (S.W. Pennsylvania, near Pittsb)        

xraytech's profile picture
I use my crock pots a lot. I have about 15 of them, most being vintage Rival models. I have a few newer ones like a 4 qt All Clad and the Ninja slow cooker.
I also have 4 NIB Rival models
My favorite to use is the Rival with the 3qt Corningware liner


Post# 909872 , Reply# 31   12/6/2016 at 09:28 (444 days old) by sudsmaster (East of SF, West of Eden, California)        

sudsmaster's profile picture

Some years ago a friend raved about buying a small slow cooker on sale and that it was perfect for single serve meals.

 

So I went to the local kmart/walmart/target and got a 1.5 liter model. It sat in hte original box for years. But last Sunday I decided to give it a try, at last. Instructions said to break it in by adding a couple cups of water and setting it on high for 15 minutes. Well, it was more like an hour and by that time the thing was boiling briskly. Tag on unit says it consumes 120 watts, no doubt on high. Which is probably a lot for such a small pot.

 

Anyway, I added some chopped onion, cubed potatoes, carrots, cubed chuck steak, soup stock, and herbs. Set on low, went off to a car meet and came back three hours later. It smelled great. But the instructions said to cook for 8-10 hours. Well by that time the aroma had dissipated and while the results were edible they had lost a lot of flavor. The next day I cut up the rest of the chuck steak and tried again, leaving it on for "only" five hours. Contents simmering by then. Results better. But I think it tends to run hot, even on low, so I will try shorter cook times to see what works best. Possible using larger chunks of meat would help, as well.

 

I'm giving it a break for a bit, but might try some pork instead of beef next time.

 

I figure slow cooker manufacturers make these things run hotter than necessary because of the very concerns about food poisoning mentioned earlier. A programmable unit might help with timing. Your mileage may vary.


Post# 909876 , Reply# 32   12/6/2016 at 10:31 (444 days old) by mikael3 (Atlanta)        

I have steamed many solid puddings in my crockpot, which is a modern Rival 6½ quart, SCVT650-PS. 

 

I don’t use a trivet; I fold a little napkin and put that in the bottom.  Then I boil some water in the tea kettle, add a few inches to the crock, and turn it on high. 

 

While the crockpot heats up, I prep the basin, add the batter, tie it down, etc.  Then the basin goes into the crock, I top it up to the correct level with some more boiling water and leave it to steam on high for 5 hours.

 

I use a 2 pint (US) / 1½ pint (Imperial) basin, which fits just fine in my crockpot.  Also, because the crock is large, there is plenty of water.  I think a small crock would cool down too much when the pudding went in.

 

The modern Rival definitely BOILS, so there’s no reason to fear a raw pudding.  I do start with boiling water, because I don’t want or need a slow rise in temperature.

 

I was surprised to read in this post that older models stayed at lower temperatures, and I now understand why some of my old recipes are not as good in this new model.  Some dishes really need to stay around 190°F, and apparently that is not going to happen in any modern crockpot.  I’m off to eBay again!!




This post was last edited 12/06/2016 at 11:46
Post# 909877 , Reply# 33   12/6/2016 at 10:37 (444 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
Rich,

panthera's profile picture

I've noticed that lots of recipes are written by idiots. At 120 watts for 1.5 liter, there's no way it needs 8 hours.

Sheesh.

One thing which has often been mentioned - lifting the lid takes away an awful lot of heat and it does add to the final cooking time.

I participated in an online review of pressure pans a few years back. Very professional, very exacting - cooked several 'high-altitude' variations on recipes. Unfortunately, the ultimate article - and this is still online and it's a major player in the review business, print and online - was edited at the last minute to make these two changes:

1) It takes 1.5 hours at 15 PSI at sealevel to cook a fresh chicken. Or make a simple soup. Or stew. When I and everybody else complained, we were informed that this was drawn from the FDA guidelines. Which is total nonsense. Stupid times are still up.

2) Because oil under pressure goes way up to a very high temp very fast, all manufacturers council against using normal pressure cookers for pressure frying. So, idiot editor dumbed down every recipe which used more than two tablespoons (aggregate!) of fat or oil. She insisted upon our repeated complaints that this was a safety rule of the manufacturers.

 

In short, they spent a lot of money, invested a lot of time, got some great recipes and testers and devices...and then absolutely destroyed the finished online review by letting editors who wouldn't know a pressure pan from a slow cooker 'correct' our work.

 

I've had kidney beans turn out (and yes, they had boiled) in five hours at our altitude in our 1957 bean pot. Without presoaking. Follow your nose and throw away the stupid instructions. Cook with a thermometer.


Post# 909892 , Reply# 34   12/6/2016 at 12:04 (444 days old) by mikael3 (Atlanta)        

FDA = LCD (lowest common denominator)

 

They really are under an obligation to tailor all instructions to the most stupid consumer they can find.  No “if ... then” clauses, no exceptions, no variations.  They always choose the most extreme end of possible outcomes, simply because they have to.  If there is even the tiniest possibility that just one or two people are too daft to understand the information, then the entire presentation has to come down to their level.

 

What angers me is that the FDA ends up giving scientifically false information, particularly when they do not acknowledge the ambiguous or inconclusive nature of many of the studies they rely on.  Guidelines on salt are a good example.  Dietary cholesterol is another.  Animal-produced, i.e. naturally occurring, trans-fats (which are not even the same as artificial trans-fats) are another.  The list is long.


Post# 909902 , Reply# 35   12/6/2016 at 12:57 (444 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
John,

panthera's profile picture

You sure got that one right.

Our protests - all 18 of us testers - that 1.5 hours for a soup was absurd fell on deaf ears. The idiot editor had never used a pressure cooker, hadn't a clue and wasn't going to let reality stand in the way of her certainties.

So - useless review, hurt the reputation of the organization and resulted in all 18 of us refusing to ever work with them again.

And then people wonder why Trump was able to create his own reality. After that project, I know exactly why.


Post# 921515 , Reply# 36   2/15/2017 at 11:12 (373 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        
Jewish History of the Crock Pot

From the Washington Jewish Week 2-9-17:

 

"Slow cookers have a Jewish origin. Their inventor, Irving Naxon, grew up listening to his mother tell stories about cholent, a bean-based Sabbath stew that cook all day, a traditional dish among Jews from central and Eastern Europe.

 

Every Friday evening, the Jewish women in his mother's Lithuanian village assembled meat, potatoes, vegetables and beans in heavy pots and brought them to the bakery. As the oven was turned off for the Sabbath, the pots were placed inside so they could simmer in the waning heat and provide a warm meal the following night.

 

In 1936, Naxon aplied for a patent for a food-heating machine featuring an insert that distributed heat evenly. By 1940, he received a patent and named his machine the Naxon Beanery. In the 1970s, he sold his patent to Rival Manufacturing, which marketed it as the Crock Pot--and the rest is history."

 

Has anyone ever seen a Naxon Beanery?

 

A baker's oven was not turned off. It was not fueled during the Sabbath, but did not cool much in those 25 hours because people expected bread on Sunday so baking began after the Sabbath ended on Saturday night.

 

 Bakers working at night are said to have heard the tunneling invaders and reported the noise, saving the city of either  Buda (later Budapest) or Vienna from Turks tunneling under the walls.  The baker made the victory pastries in the shape of the Islamic Crescent and thus Croissants were born:

 

Origin stories

Stories of how the Kipferl — and so, ultimately, the croissant — was created are widespread and persistent culinary legends, going back to the 19th century.[12] However, there are no contemporary sources for any of these stories, and an aristocratic writer, writing in 1799, does not mention the Kipferl in a long and extensive list of breakfast foods.[13]

The legends include tales that it was invented in Europe to celebrate the defeat of the Umayyad forces by the Franks at the Battle of Tours in 732, with the shape representing the Islamic crescent; that it was invented in Buda; or, according to other sources, in Vienna in 1683 to celebrate the defeat of the Ottomans by Christian forces in the siege of the city, as a reference to the crescents on the Ottoman flags, when bakers staying up all night heard the tunneling operation and gave the alarm.[12]

The above-mentioned Alan Davidson proposed that the Islamic origin story originated with 20th-century writer Alfred Gottschalk, who gave two versions, one in the Larousse Gastronomique and the other in his History of Food and Gastronomy:[14]

According to one of a group of similar legends, which vary only in detail, a baker of the 17th century, working through the night at a time when his city (either Vienna in 1683 or Budapest in 1686) was under siege by the Turks, heard faint underground rumbling sounds which, on investigation, proved to be caused by a Turkish attempt to invade the city by tunnelling under the walls. The tunnel was blown up. The baker asked no reward other than the exclusive right to bake crescent-shaped pastries commemorating the incident, the crescent being the symbol of Islam. He was duly rewarded in this way, and the croissant was born. The story seems to owe its origin, or at least its wide diffusion, to Alfred Gottschalk, who wrote about the croissant for the first edition [1938] of the Larousse Gastronomique and there gave the legend in the Turkish attack on Budapest in 1686 version; but on the history of food, opted for the 'siege of Vienna in 1683' version.[15]

— Alan Davidson, Oxford Companion to Food

This has led to croissants being banned by some Islamic fundamentalists.[16]


Post# 921937 , Reply# 37   2/17/2017 at 04:47 (371 days old) by sudsmaster (East of SF, West of Eden, California)        

sudsmaster's profile picture
Interesting account of the birth of the slow cooker small appliance. Never heard of Naxon before. The idea that leaving a crock in the bakery oven which is not re-fueled on the Sabbath is interesting: a way to honor the laws against lighting a fire on the Sabbath and having a hot meal at the end of the day. I do remember slow cookers becoming something of a rage in the '70's, although it took me a long time to "get with it" and acquire my own in the late 90's. That one I still have; it's an oval Rival with a green crock. I had this idea that the size would accommodate a whole chicken. But I was never all that impressed with the result. More like boiled chicken. OK for a sort of chicken stew, I guess.

One thing about slow cookers is a bit of a concern. And that is the amount of time that the raw food sits in the cooker before the temp goes from room temp to a safer 120F and above. I suppose that would be called the danger zone. I suppose some modern cookers allow one to program them for high for the first few hours and then switch to low. The Hamilton Beach I have now has a temp probe, which is very nice, as it will switch automatically to "Warm" when the target probe temp is reached, but it doesn't to the programmed high-low switch, at least not in temp probe mode.




Post# 921944 , Reply# 38   2/17/2017 at 06:11 (371 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
I use mine

Which is a ancient Rival I found new in the box at a estate sale,very often,for a roast, I use about a 3 pound chuck roast, spray the cooker with Pam, salt and pepper the meat, put it in the cooker, add a couple of garlic cloves, a sprig or 2 of Rosemary, and slice a onion on top, turn on low, cover it and cook at least 8 to 12 hours, no liquid added and when done you have plenty of broth, I also use mine to make apple butter which is the best I ever tasted.I will hunt up the recipe and post it, I use it for chili,spaghetti sauce,and lots of other things.

Post# 921961 , Reply# 39   2/17/2017 at 08:13 (371 days old) by joeekaitis (Rialto, California, USA)        
Meatloaf in a slow cooker . . .

joeekaitis's profile picture

 

 

 

Heavenly.  Spray the crock of a large oblong slow cooker with nonstick cooking spray, shape the loaf to fit with at least a half-inch on all sides, low setting for 8 to 10 hours.

 

For a little char, use a small oblong cooker and pack the mixture firmly.  You'll get a flatter loaf but with that exterior crispness which some folks crave and others foolishly leave on the plate for the dog or the Waste King.


Post# 922008 , Reply# 40   2/17/2017 at 16:02 (371 days old) by CircleW (NE Cincinnati OH area)        

My mom never owned a Crock Pot, but she did buy a West Bend slow cooker that was two pieces - a base that could be used as a grill, and a rectangular metal pot that sat on it. When turned to HI it could get pretty hot.

My sister got several Crock Pots for her first wedding in '79, as they were quite a fad at that time.


Post# 922145 , Reply# 41   2/18/2017 at 09:08 (370 days old) by polkanut (Wausau, WI )        

polkanut's profile picture

I found this last fall at a neighborhood estate sale.  I think I paid around $5.00 for it.  Almost all of the original paperwork came with it as well.



CLICK HERE TO GO TO polkanut's LINK

Post# 922147 , Reply# 42   2/18/2017 at 09:47 (370 days old) by joeekaitis (Rialto, California, USA)        
Steel cut oats: bowl-in-the-crock slow cooker method

joeekaitis's profile picture

 

 

Works best in a large programmable ("smart pot") slow cooker.

 

Hunt up a Corning Ware Pyroceram covered casserole that will fit inside your slow cooker using the inverted casserole lid as a riser under the casserole.  This, of course, rules out your rare first-generation "shark's fin" lid.   The crock's lid shouldn't touch the raised casserole.  A 1.5 liter casserole will make two servings.

 

Put 2 cups of water in the bottom of the crock.  Put in the inverted lid into the crock.   Combine oats and water in the casserole using the proportions on the package.  Set the casserole on the inverted lid.  Cover the crock.

 

If you have the luxury of time and planned ahead, set the cooker for 8 hours on low; otherwise 4 hours on high.  Results should be about the same.

 

Advantages:  You only need to wash the casserole (soak in cold water until wash-up time) and wipe the crock dry.   The gentle steam prevents a hard crust from forming on the oats.  Predictable results.

 

Disadvantages:  Not for the impatient with limited time-management skills.  Can't make a crowd-feeding batch.

 

And, yes, this was inspired by the bowl-in-the-pressure-cooker method


Post# 922173 , Reply# 43   2/18/2017 at 12:57 (370 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

Old electric range manuals used to have a recipe for the overnight method of cooking oats in the deep well. This was long before the quick cooking oats you can buy today.

 

I found a huge box of Quaker quick-cooking oatmeal at Costco that was much cheaper than the store brand of quick cooking oats at our Shoppers Fools' Warehouse. When I opened it, the oats were about twice the diameter of regular quick cooking oats. I found an easy way to cook them. I turn the 6 inch unit of the range to High and place on it the empty 1.5 qt A series Corning sauce pan or one of the round Corning pans with a handle molded on it. Then I pour in 1 cup of water and add the half cup of oats and a little salt. At the first sign of a bubble, I stir it once, put the cover on and turn off the current. In 5 minutes they are perfectly done.


Post# 979982 , Reply# 44   1/26/2018 at 09:50 by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        
Turkey With Cornbread Crust!

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
Well,here is the hardest & most-challenging thing that I'd made in my slow cooker:

But unfortunately when I wanted to add more meat (turkey) to pot, it got left on Warm, and not turned to Low while I was at work, so after this delicious portion was all that I got to enjoy, the whole rest of it burned beyond any recognition (& enjoyment) because I couldn't count on anyone left here to turn the cooking setting down to the warming one, when it was done:



-- Dave


  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 20         View Full Size
Post# 979996 , Reply# 45   1/26/2018 at 11:47 by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        
Yes, it BURNED TO SUBMISSION!!!!

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
Oops! Major corrections neeed in my previous post:

"It got left on LOW, and not turned to WARM!"...

And too much leftover cole slaw, beyond the date... It's waiting to sicken the first person who bites into it...



-- Dave





Forum Index:       Other Forums:                      



Comes to the Rescue!

The Discuss-o-Mat has stopped, buzzer is sounding!!!
If you would like to reply to this thread please log-in...

Discuss-O-MAT Log-In



New Members
Click Here To Sign Up.



                     


automaticwasher.org home
Discuss-o-Mat Forums
Vintage Brochures, Service and Owners Manuals
Fun Vintage Washer Ephemera
See It Wash!
Video Downloads
Audio Downloads
Picture of the Day
Patent of the Day
Photos of our Collections
The Old Aberdeen Farm
Vintage Service Manuals
Vintage washer/dryer/dishwasher to sell?
Technical/service questions?
Looking for Parts?
Website related questions?
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy
Our Privacy Policy