Is a more expensive crockpot (slow cooker) worth it?

[dermacie]

I recently broke the top off the lid of my crock pot brand slow cooker that I have used less than a year. I seem to be hard on them and none have held up like my original one I had from the 1980s.

I am wondering if I would buy a more expensive one like an All-Clad brand one if it would last longer than a year?

I am open to suggestions on a new slow cooker!

 

[ea56]

Derek.

I too broke the glass id on my first Crock Pot, it was one of the first, smaller, models, I think 3 or 4 qt, size. Anyway, I just used a RevereWare lid for a 2 qt. sauce pan and it worked beautifully, problem solved. Take a look through your lids and I'll bet you can find one that will do the trick. I use my Slow cooker so seldom that one of the newer, fancier models would be a waste for me.
HTH,
Eddie

 

[rp2813]

Not worth it

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.

 

[petek]

 from a "leading" consumer reporting source  

 

"<span style="font-family: PublicoText, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 20px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 30px;">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.</span>

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.

 

[petek]

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

 

[xraytech]

I had a newer Rival Crock Pot that I hated.
I much prefer my 70s and 80s one.
I did pick up an All Clad slow cooker at their factory sale, it is better than other new ones.

Actually I have a Brand New 80s Crock Pot I'm looking to sell if you're interested, as I see you're in Pittsburgh too

 

[dermacie]

I am in Pittsburgh Sam. I might see if I can find a vintage one instead.

Petek thank you for the info It is so difficult finding quality products today.

Eddy I looked on Crock-pot website and they sell a replacement lid for almost as much as a new unit lol.

 

[mikael3]

As I understand it, Rival invented the crock pot as we know it, and theirs have always performed the best for me.  I’ve worked with a Cuisinart and it was not as good as my $50 Rival—it was smaller and very heavy, and of course over $200.  I do like the newer Rivals with the time controls, which has kept from looking too hard for a vintage model.  I’m sure I’ll buy if I see one, though.

 

[fan-of-fans]

I don't know much about them, never really used one. We got one of the newer Rivals with the locking lid, was a freebie, but never used it.

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. She loved that one but I think something happened to it and she was dismayed that she couldn't get a new one in that style.

I do frequently see the older Rival models with the brown crock from time to time at Goodwill and other places, usually in avocado green.

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.

 

[lordkenmore]

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.

 

 

[rp2813]

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.

 

 

 

[lordkenmore]

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.

 

[circlew]

We only had one slow cooker, and it was a West Bend that had the rectangular pot that set on a heating base. I think I gave it away some time ago.

My sister has several, including the Rival (Avocado) she got for her first wedding in '79, when they were all the rage.

There are a couple in the church kitchen, and some of the women who make things for the church dinner bring their own filled with food. They all have removable crocks, which seem so heavy - I hate having to wash and dry them. It's also a pain transferring the contents to the steam table pans to serve.

 

[mrsalvo]

In my humble opinion, Yes, I think a more expensive one is probably better. I bought a "Crock Pot" from Wal-Mart last year, VERY CHEAP. I swear the outer metal is so thin, you can burn yourself easily. It cooks much hotter than another older one I have, that's also heavier. Have to be more careful in cleaning it also. The pot lifts out, and I throw it into the dishwasher. If a recipe calls for, say 5 hours on high, I usually cut cooking time to around 4 hours as the temp's are hotter. Low settings cook much faster as well.

Have been thinking of disposing it actually, it's so flimsy and cheap it kind of scares me. There sure isn't much between the heating elements and the outer metal skin. I burned myself one day using it.

 

[askolover]

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.

 

[xraytech]

This is the NIB crock-pot I have to get rid of, if interested.

 

[panthera]

I have my doubts as to the need for running hotter and food

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.

 

[lordkenmore]

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.

 

[DADoES]

 
I have a "Fiesta" brand, whatever the hell is that.  I use it occasionally.  It doesn't heat evenly across the crock.  Once tried a cake recipe, it burned on one side, mooshy on the other.  Works OK for casseroles, soups, roasts, etc.

 

[lordkenmore]

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...

 

 

 

[lordkenmore]

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...

 

[rp2813]

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.

 

[lordkenmore]

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...

 

[this post was last edited: 10/1/2017-17:53]

 

[gyrafoam]

The newest one I have has a lid that clamps-down for travel. A very useful feature when you bring the soup.
However, this unit runs HOT.

Since I have noticed it I have heard a number of people with this model who are having the same experience.
I think I prefer a model with more moderate "keep warm" heat.

Would a more expensive model made a difference?

 

[kimball455]

Seldom use a crock pot. In fact, it is not been off the shelf in close to 2 years. About the only thing I used it for in the past was to hold pulled pork made in the pressure cooker. This year I just left everything in the pressure cooker (electric version) and use that at the annual summer block party. Worked great and I did not have always messy problem of transferring from pressure cooker to crock pot. Pressure cooker has a heavy stainless steel insert that goes in the dishwasher.

It will most likely be yard sale material in the spring yard sale season at the shore.

Harry

 

[rp2813]

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.

 

[mrb627]

Crock Pot / Slow Cooker

I currently have three. Two are Rivals and the other brand escapes me at the moment. All various sizes used for specific tasks. I could not live without them. I wouldn't spend more than say 40 bucks on one. My oldest one was purchased around 1998 and gets the most use. They are invaluable to a single person household.

Malcolm

 

[daveamkrayoguy]

Seems like Crock Pots or Slow Cookers have come a long way...

My RIVAL has gone to one appliance that I'd never used to used tremendously, to wondering if ti's time to upgrade to one that is more automatic & in less need of tending to than my current one that still works well for me...

-- Dave

 

[mrb627]

IMO...

I would avoid an electronically controlled model.
They limit you to a maximum cooking time, and if you lose power for a minute or two, it could remain turned off. It is a simple device and shouldn't require n electronic brain to complete it's task.

Just my opinion.

Malcolm

 

[revvinkevin]

 

 

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 <span style="text-decoration: underline;">ideal</span> 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