New (to me) "Odorless" skillet

JenniferM

Member
Another of my antique store finds from last weekend. I only bought it because it seemed unique and it wasn't expensive. I know zilch about it other than what it says on the skillet bottom. I did read that it was used on old style stoves, so maybe it's not functional on today's modern stoves? :confused: I thought - if not practical for cooking - I could use it for another purpose aside from cooking, or just decoration.

Any information would be most appreciated. Thanks much, in advance, for any information.

20150217_214516.jpg


20150217_214502.jpg


20150217_214531_edit_1424227685794.jpg
 
"Odorless" design pots and skillets were made to be used on wood stoves where the updraft from the flue would pull cooking odors down through the holes or channels in the pan into the firebox where they would burn and or be pulled out the exhaust. It was apparently a popular enough concept that Griswold even made a toy version of an odorless skillet.
 
Ahhh thank you Doug! That makes sense. I didn't quite get why they were used on the wood stove. It definitely seems thinner than my other CI pieces. Is it practical to use on today's ranges, do you know? If so, are there some things best left to a more traditional CI skillet vs trying to cook in this one?
 
It could certainly be used to cook in on any type of burner. The odorless feature would of course not function unless over a wood stove eye.
 
Fantastic. Again, I thank you, Doug. Knowing I can use it for cooking makes me happy, and now I know I didn't spend $30 on a "decoration".
 
Fantastic. Again, I thank you, Doug. Knowing I can use it for cooking makes me happy, and now I know I didn't spend $30 on a "decoration".

Nice looking skillet. Interesting that the pour spouts are at 8 and 4 o'clock. It is "decoration", only if you do not use it. It still is eye candy.:icon_thumbsup:
 
Nice looking skillet. Interesting that the pour spouts are at 8 and 4 o'clock. It is "decoration", only if you do not use it. It still is eye candy.:icon_thumbsup:

Thank you everyone. I will try cooking in it, see how it goes & report back. It's not really super thin; just noticed its slightly lighter than most other pans. So I guess $30 was an okay price to pay for it? Not worried about it for resale purposes; just curious because I like knowing I got a good deal. I saw similar pans going on ebay for $85, so I guess I did okay.

Jeffrey - I like that the pour spouts are in the 4 & 8 positions, and actually hoped to be able to use it for that reason. I have somewhat weak wrists, and this allows me to use more comfortably use one hand/wrist to pour from it vs if the pour spouts were at 3 & 9 because, with the latter, you really almost need both hands to hold the pan and pour. With ithem at 4 & 8, you can hold the pan more upright & at an angle, which is more one-hand friendly, for me, at least. It's hard to explain, but if you take a like sized skillet, and pretend to pour from both positions, you will see what I mean. I am bad at describing stuff.
 
Jeffrey - I like that the pour spouts are in the 4 & 8 positions, and actually hoped to be able to use it for that reason. I have somewhat weak wrists, and this allows me to use more comfortably use one hand/wrist to pour from it vs if the pour spouts were at 3 & 9 because, with the latter, you really almost need both hands to hold the pan and pour. With ithem at 4 & 8, you can hold the pan more upright & at an angle, which is more one-hand friendly, for me, at least. It's hard to explain, but if you take a like sized skillet, and pretend to pour from both positions, you will see what I mean. I am bad at describing stuff.

Maybe it was made for the ladies of the kitchen.:biggrin:

They did make skillets with only left or right hand pour spout.:icon_thumbsup:
 
Great find on your skillet; probably fortunate that it's "unmarked": if it said Griswold the price would have probably have tripled! The only one like this I've seen was last month in a shop for $80.

I'm thinking the pattern of holes is pretty unique, as other odorless pieces I've seen have a square or rectangular enclosed or walled slot at 12:00, opposite the handle.

I've been told that they only worked well with a cover and that they were usually "tin" or light steel. I've only seen one with a cover and I'll be showing that one in another post. I see your skillet described on pg 132 of "the Red Book" under the Griswold section and it notes that a cover was an option. The book shows the more traditional configuration on pg 133.

I've attached 2 pictures of one of mine that I got at a local shop for $12. The dealer had been told that the slot was probably for putting a wood handle in to help balance the pan with the regular handle.

You've got a unique skillet, with so much more to it than the average one!
 

Attachments

  • Odorless Skillet -2.jpg
    Odorless Skillet -2.jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 46
  • Odorless Skillet.jpg
    Odorless Skillet.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 42
Thanks Mike. It is rather unique, so I'm kind of excited about it. I found two identical skillets to mine, shown by these sellers as from Erie & Griswold (are they one in the same?). Somewhere else, I came across the patent doc for the pan, and intend to read it just to understand the background on the design/concept, though the earlier explanation makes perfect sense. Just think it'd be fun to read that as well.

Griswold asking $125.

Erie sold for $89.95

---------- Post added at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

Found a few others that sold for prices all over the place on ebay. Funny thing is, a few of them have a 3 digit number stamp on the back; mine does not. Not sure what that is indicative of. :icon_scratchchin:
 
The ones with a pattern number are Griswold, the others without may or may not be. Patents referenced on pieces are not necessarily held by the firm that produced the product.
 
Nice looking skillet. I bet that would make a great pie pan, the shape and holes make me think apple pie for some reason.

KELLY
 
Back
Top