I would also like some follow-up to cookware evaluations, Robert. There seems to be serious credibility problem when CR gives very high marks for one brand ("Earth Pan"), but virtually all consumer ratings are negative - VERY negative.
CR is obligated to its paying customers who rely on good advice to answer to that discrepancy in my opinion. How could they not? If the flood of negative consumer ratings is an organized libel campaign (which seems doubtful), then let us know about it. I am not suggesting CR botched their tests, but perhaps there is a manufacturing issue with this cookware. Bottom line is, something's rotten in Denmark, and CR seems to be holding its nose and holding its ground on its recommendations.
In that vein, I wish there was an avenue on this website for issues like this to be brought to CR's attention. Maybe someone in their organization follows up on stuff in these forums?
With some exceptions, If you look at Ratings of most products there are the detractors and supporters of the product with reviews that have a wide range of opinions. Non-stick pans have traditionally been a difficult product to test because there is usually a trade-off between food adhesion and durability. The best releasing surfaces are the very smooth teflon surfaces, but they are easily scratched by metal utensils. More durable non-stick finishes are not smooth to the touch and begin to lose their non-stick properties as they accumulate tiny food particles over time that can cause food to stick. Those pans need to be cleaned in various ways to remove the tiny particles, usually by boiling water in them for a short period of time which helps release and dissolve those particles. We test each model exactly the same way and report our findings. We can't account for all foods, cooking methods, and cleaning habits of all our readers, so our findings may differ from some.
Thanks for the info regarding how CR tests and why the results may seem inconsistent with actual user experiences. I think it is safe to say that in the case of this particular cookware review, CR simply missed the mark in the nonstick category. I subscribe to CR because I trust the data that CR provides, when that data comes into question, the value of having a CR subscription also comes into question.
Having said all that, the initial question of the thread has not been answered; when is CR planning the next nonstick cookware review?
Given the fact that there is such a disparity between CR's results and actual user results, I would think that CR would conduct another review sooner rather than later. There have been several additions to the nonstick cookware market since the review and we (subscribers to CR) want to know how they stack up in CR's test environment.
I would love to see the following included:
Ameriware, Kirkland, Calphalon Unison, Anolon Advanced Bronze and Circulon Symmetry. I am sure that I have missed a few.
".. when CR gives very high marks for one brand ("Earth Pan"), but virtually all consumer ratings are negative - VERY negative..."
I would have to disagree with that statement. I just checked several ratings by buyers on reseller sites and others, and the EarthPan got pretty good ratings from all. the worst average was 3.5/5, with most being in the 4.5-5 star range.
That said, I am not especially fond of the one EarthPan that I have used - I would classify it as light duty at best, easily bent out of shape. I also have a BIG issue with their advertising - " This unique nonstick originates from sand..". Yeah, well DUH - originates from sand - well so does concrete, glass, computer chips, and thousands of other items that use sand or Silicon.
The process they use to get from sand to non stick coating is highly energy intensive. Being "made from sand" hardly qualifies it to be eco-friendly.
But as you also noted, it would be nice to see some follow up, and a new test of non-stick pans. It might also be interesting to test them against the traditional polished stainless that many chefs use, and perhaps the ceramic coatings.