One pan to rule them all

>>7869713
You can cook a little food in a large pan but you cannot do the opposite. My thoughts:

>10 inch skillet
too small. Get a 12" instead. It can do everything the 10" can, and more.

>saucier style pan
Sounds good

>one large pot or Dutch oven
I would suggest both; they're different tools for different jobs. But if you have to go sperg-tier minimalist, then a large enameled dutch oven would suffice

>>essential pan
I'm not a fan of those because the shape makes it difficult to toss food in.

>>4 quarts too big
Nope

>>7869713
>saucier
>skillet
>dutch oven
>10 quart stock pot

>>7869713
4 quarts is way too big for just 2. You're better off getting 2 quarts

Cast Iron skillet, and a non-stick egg pan.

>>7869713

Cast iron skillet, the bigger and the older the better

Carbon steel skillet (for eggs, etc)

Big ass pot for pasta, lobsters

Good quality heavy saucepan

Make sure nothing matches

File: 41QHqInEiaL.jpg (27KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x373px

Get a Falk 28cm rondeau

File: wood.jpg (16KB, 209x270px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 209x270px

>>7871762

why? seems like the first reply covered it pretty well
theres not much else to say

>>7871769
^this, except (unless you frequently make sauces), I'd dump the saucier. I've got 2 sizes of le cruset Dutch ovens, a copper Dutch oven like the one featured above, a copper saucier, a carbon steel crepe pan, a full set of all-clad, and a full set of my great great grandmothers cast iron, and honestly I only really use the Dutch oven (large), 12" skillet, and large and small saucepans regularly. Depends on the kind of food you cook I guess.

File: image.jpg (80KB, 574x459px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 574x459px

>>7871799
Oh, and for a "do it all" a sauté pan is hard to beat

>>7869713
12 inch skillet, not 10.

you need at least 1 small pot as well. sauces, etc

File: 81hHLufwxzL._SL1500_.jpg (99KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1500x1500px

combi-cooker is the one to rule them all. Saute, Saucier, and Dutch all in one

>>7869751

there are many practical reasons for preferring a smaller pan over a large pan, you realize this, right?

>>7869863
>>7870037

>cast iron fags like fucking clockwork

begone, poorfags. If you must, a 10 inch plate or skillet is sufficient for anything you would need a cast iron for.

>bigger is better

literally think about your post for 5 seconds

>carbon steel for eggs

???

>>7870037
^this guy doesn't actually cook, I've found out.

>>7870037
>Carbon steel skillet (for eggs, etc)
Why would you not use the cast iron for its quintessential purpose of frying eggs?

Are you one of those reddit fags that can't into shit not sticking?

>>7872882

nonstick is superior for eggs, plain and simple.

File: cosplay.jpg (65KB, 640x410px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 640x410px

>>7871861
I guess I'd rather have a saute pan than a fry pan if it was my only pan, but I wouldn't exactly call it a "do it all" any more than a cast iron pan

remember kids, just because you (sorta) can doesn't mean you should
>>7872863
b-but muh hamboigahs
>>7872882
>but MOMMMMMMYYYY! I TOLD you not to use SOAP on the cast IRONNNNN! it ruins the MAGNETITE!!!!
pic related

>no wok mentioned
chink pan is best pan

File: 71EP4g4HPQL._SL1200_.jpg (132KB, 1200x1134px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1200x1134px

>>7869713

I'd get this as a stockpot. Enamel on high carbon steel, relatively non stick but without the weight of cast iron.

4 quarts is nothing.

>>7872902

>OP looking for minimalist, everyday cookware

>this motherfucker posts a pic of his camping setup in a cinderblock pit

does not compute

>>7872947
>he thinks I actually cosplay
no, anon, that was for you, hambeast mcrenfaire