Replacement glass lids can often be found on thrift store shelves.  Just measure what you have and then head out!

There's also a very good chance you'll find a perfectly good vintage slow cooker there as well, in case you'd just as soon buy one that will last a lifetime to replace your year-old Crock Pot.

 from a "leading" consumer reporting source  

"Prices for the slow cookers we bought in past tests ranged from $40 to $250, but the cost of the cooker didn't predict performance. Specific features helped make one slow cooker better, or more convenient, than another. The newer models feature electronic controls that let you pre-program cooking time, usually in 30-minute intervals, and that automatically switch to warm when cooking is complete.

Because there is so little difference in overall cooking performance we no longer test slow cookers or provide slow cooker Ratings. But if you're looking for buying tips, check out this guide.

Honestly if you just shop around at all the major retailers you're going to find a super deal on a fully featured slow cooker somewhere.. they always seem to be on sale or in the stores "clearance" area.. I got my Hamilton Beach Set & Forget with probe for about $40 on sale.. and one day in Meijer I saw big electronic Crock Pots on clearance for I think it was $25 plus an additional $5 off for something,, t hat was less than 1/3 the regular price so I bought two to give as gifts

I remember my grandmother having a West Bend model with a metal pot was separate and could either go on the stove or on the base.

My mother had one of these. Hers had a round pot (later West Bend models had a rectangular pot). AFAIK, she never used the pot on the stove--indeed, the only thing I can remember her using the slow cooker for was vegetable soup.

I see the pots turn up regularly at Goodwill--I suspect that they have outlasted the hot plate.

Remember reading that the newer models heat hotter than the old ones did. I believe it has to do with food safety and getting the food to reach the proper temperature faster, which took longer on the older ones, and trying to cook on low would have taken too long.

I've seen commentary along those lines in cookbooks, etc. Often there is a suggestion that if one has an older slow cooker, one should immediately rush out and upgrade to a new one for food safety.

I have three slow cookers.  Two were made by HB, a 6-quart "Crock Watcher" from the '80s with removable crock, and a 4-quart "Crock-A-Dial" (Dominion badged) from the '70s with fixed crock, plus an oval shaped Farberware 6-quart with removable crock that's maybe 15 or so years old.  All three have the "Auto Shift" feature that starts out on high heat for a relatively short period and then bumps down to low for the remainder of the cooking time.  I use that feature a lot.

What I've found is that the Farberware seems to run hotter and cook faster than the older units.  We gave Dave's daughter and SIL a slow cooker for a gift several years ago, but I don't remember the make.  It had hasps to hold the lid down for traveling, and a snap mechanism to store the included spoon/ladle on the top cover.   Per their feedback, it sounded like it behaved similarly to the Farberware.  I'm tending to think newer versions run hotter across the board.  Perhaps their crocks aren't as thick or are made from different materials than the vintage ones.

So, if you want the low and slow performance of a vintage cooker, you'd be better off finding one of those than buying new, plus, unless you like the rigamarole of getting a new one with a fancy control panel to start cooking, the ease-of-use factor with vintage is superior.

I'm tending to think newer versions run hotter across the board.  Perhaps their crocks aren't as thick or are made from different materials than the vintage ones.

One thing I think I've noticed on Rival is that the power consumption seems higher on newer units than similar sized old units. Suggesting that the heater runs hotter. But I also would not be surprised if the crocks aren't as thick--it's a way of cutting costs for the maker...

the ease-of-use factor with vintage is superior.

True. I also wonder if older slow cookers won't outlast a new slow cooker...even if it's many years old/high miles at the time of purchase... As far as I'm concerned, Features=More Stuff To Break. Particularly on a cheap appliance.

I have my mother's old crock pot she used when I was growing up.  She bought a new one when the lid broke and just stuck this one up in the attic.  When I set up housekeeping she said I could have it if I wanted it and maybe I could find a lid for it...and I did.  The crock is not removeable.  I also have two with removable crocks.  The old one does a better job but is such a PITA to clean since I can't stick it in the dishwasher...although now they have those crock pot liners.  I think the new ones get hotter in order to pass the heat from the cooker and through the crock.  The old one has the heating element embedded within the crock pottery.

Safety on the newer ones. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that people lift the lids today during cooking and that was absolutely forbidden on the older units.

I rarely use a crockpot, I'm a pressure cooker fan. When I do, though, I always cook with something super acidic just to make sure the food doesn't spoil. I also preheat the food and cooker so get off to a boiling hot start when nobody else is in the kitchen to comment on how I'm doing it wrong.

Generally speaking, newer appliances have better safety features and are built to fail fast. Older appliances are safe, but require user intelligence. They were expensive so built to last forever. I'll stick with the older ones whenever I can.

The old one does a better job but is such a PITA to clean since I can't stick it in the dishwasher...although now they have those crock pot liners.

I've not used a slow cooker with non-removable insert in recent memory. But I shudder at the hassle of cleaning. Dishwashers are obviously out, and I can imagine that even hand washing could be a pain.

It's interesting, because it seems like one argument for slow cookers is convenience--just toss everything in, plug it in, and forget it. And yet so many designs are less convenient come cleanup time.

As for running hot for food safety, I can't comment except that I've read commentary about modern slow cookers running hot for food safety. This isn't Internet commentary--I've seen this in articles and books. But, of course, the writer may not have the right answer. Or the writer may be working with some information purposely given by a slow cooker maker in hopes of it going into print and frightening people into buying a new slow cooker...

Generally speaking, newer appliances have better safety features

Generally speaking, maybe, but I've heard too many horror stories about cheap modern appliances starting fires...

If buying new, I wonder if it wouldn't make sense buying a recognizable name. Even if the "name" no longer actually exists as an independent company. Theory: there is value in those names, and so safety might be important. And if something goes wrong, there will probably be a recall. Meanwhile, a name you never heard of before has less to lose...

Crock pot liners are the bomb!  They make the most sense for vintage cookers that don't have a removable crock.   That having been stated, my Crock-A-Dial has a non-removable cord and while I don't immerse the thing, I also don't worry too much if the exterior gets wet during the process of washing the interior.  It's managing the rest of the power cord while washing that's a PITA.

I end up washing removable crocks by hand too if I haven't used a liner because even my Miele can't get every bit of crusty residue off. 

I'm with Keven, though.  I tend to use a pressure cooker more often than a slow cooker.  I'm the world's worst meal planner, and am more last minute about putting dinner on the table.  Getting dinner going before I've even had my morning coffee just doesn't happen very often.

I'm the world's worst meal planner, and am more last minute about putting dinner on the table.

I seldom use slow cookers. I am thinking the last time I used one was probably nearly two years ago. Part of it is just that I'm not in the habit, I guess, and never have been. One tends to use the old and familiar cooking methods--at least I do. But slow cookers are also a problem in that I tend these days to cook fast/last minute meals.

Of course, I hear a lot about slow cookers from people who tell me about the wonders of slow cookers as if they were imparting some sort of strange, magical, unknown wisdom. I get a bit tired of this--yes, I know they exist. (I am talking about people here I know in daily life. I don't mind AW.org conversations about slow cooker meals or the neat vintage slow cooker someone found.)

I've never used a pressure cooker, but it's on my "someday" list...

I have a '50s-'60s Nesco "full range" 6-quart roaster with porcelain enamel coated metal insert.  I prefer to use it as a slow cooker for certain things because the insert is so much lighter and easier to handle, and isn't like a 500-lb gorilla in the dishwasher, although as mentioned above, I can't always trust the dishwasher to render satisfactory results with slow cooker inserts.

I have a basic "Crock-Pot" brand 5 qt. model with removable insert an "off-low-high" switch, that's probably 16 years old(?) now.  I've only used it a handful of times, that is, to start it before leaving for work to cook something for dinner.  This is because I've mostly tried chicken dishes and they all say "5-6 hours", but by the time I get home it's often 9-10 hours.  I don't want a pot of "chicken mush" for dinner, LOL.  

I'm sure it's ideal for cooking beef, but I rarely eat beef for dinner.  I'm also pretty sure they work great for pork too and while I do love pork, I've yet to try it in the crock pot.  I have used it numerous times to heat & serve (or just serve) food at parties and that works quite well. 

Re: The subject of food safety.  Every time I do use it, I always start it on high for 10-15 minutes, then turn it to low.  I want to reduce the amount of time meats stay at "unsafe" temps as much as possible.

Kevin

Depending on how often you experience power outages.....

=      =      =       = 

The last power failure in my area I know of happened sometime last year, during the night while I was sleeping.  It must not have been out long because out of 5 clocks, I only had to reset the microwave.

I actually use my electronic pressure cooker a lot more than the slow cooker.  I recently bought a new 8qt Instant Pot and very happy with it although 20/20 hindsight I probably should have just gone with the 6 qt model. 

If I had an electric stove, I'd probably look into an electric pressure cooker, since adjusting the burner settings on an electric stove just right can be tricky without a "smart" burner.  Since I have a gas stove, using a stove-top pressure cooker is a cinch. 

The only advantage an electric cooker would have is automatic shut-off, but generally I'm working in the vicinity of the cooker while it's cooking, and the ancient method of setting a mechanical timer works fine for me.

About the electronic pressure cookers as opposed to the electric pressure cookers. The electronic units All run at 10lbs, the electric at the standard 15lbs. 

The difference is day and night in speed. If you live at 1000 feet, they can't even reach canning temperature at 10lbs, by the time you get to 3000 feet, you might as well not even bother with10lbs, it's useless.

Since you can put an electric running at a true 15lbs on a timer, there's zero arguments for an electronic except below 750 feet.

To me were always useless appliances that wasted space, if you have an electric stove top you can use any covered pan or dutch oven on a stove top element on the low setting and get the same results and if you are like me and don't like to plan and start dinner 6-12 hours in advance you can use a pressure cooker and have a fresher looking better tasting meal in under and hour.

Its sort like a rice cooker which is absolutely useless if you have an electric range. It seems like all the houses I go into with gas cook-tops are the ones with these space wasting hard to clean appliances.

John L.

I disagree about the tastes of things cooked slow in a crock pot vs. a pressure cooker.  There's no contest as far as I'm concerned.  As Paulo stated, a lot of things made in a pressure cooker end up tasting like canned food.  Because of that, I'm particular about what I use a pressure cooker for.  On the other hand, I don't think I've ever had a bad meal from a crock pot.

And yes, I own a gas range because I prefer cooking on one, and I have three small appliances taking up space:  a coffee maker,  a toaster, and a mixer.   I'm betting owners of electric ranges have those same items within easy reach. 

And let me just say that there's nothing difficult about cleaning a rice cooker.

Stick a pork or beef roast in the crock pot.  Smear a can of cream of mushroom soup over it.  Chop a medium onion and dump it on top of all that.  A little black pepper to taste.  Cook all day or overnight and it will come out fork tender and taste soooo good.  Sometimes I add a little white wine at the beginning for flavor but it just depends on my mood.

Then you probably should use a crockpot liner for safety.

I would be very careful with a cracked insert.   I once witnessed the bottom of an insert falling to the carpeted floor, with all contents following, while on its way to a buffet table.

"I've tried using an electric pressure cooker, and either it's me not knowing how they cook, but I didn't have a good result. Way under done. I followed the instructions. I allowed the pressure to build before I timed it like they said."

I've been cooking with pressure cookers since the 1970's. Based on my experience, the recipes for any meat thicker than 2" or so are about 1/3 to short on time needed. Today, I just figure that in (on top of the extra 20% for our altitude).

And before anyone says it's not worth it, then, they need to try using a conventional oven at well over 6000'. Crockpots up here, while producing wonderful results, are truly overnight or all day affairs, not the 4-5 hour maximums you see at sea-level.

The Instant Pot is great. I find I'm using it quite often. I bought the 8qt but probably should have gone with the 6 qt.   I haven't tried the slow cook function yet.