I have three crock pots. Two of the larger ones that the crock comes out of and one smaller one that the crock doesn't come out of. I would say go for the bigger one. I have four kids and there are times a large frozen roast or even a small ham hardly fits in it. One of mine was a wedding gift years ago the other two I bought at yard sales. I use them all the time. I like having extras because around here when someone dies we all take food to the family and I can take a nice hot pot of soup in my crock pot and all they have to do it plug it in. Having extras I don't worry about being without my crockpot and the family is usually thrilled with a hot meal. I use the address labels to mark my top, the crock and the base. I also write my name with permanent marker. You can usually pick crock pots up at yard sales around here for under $5.

Hi Sooz. I went back to the Good Will this morning, tape measure in hand and your previous post with the measurements pulled up on my phone. Unfortunately, the crock only measured 10 inches from outside edge to outside edge (across the top) so it's too small to fit for you. It was 11 and 1/2 from handle to handle, and 10 without including the handles. Sorry it didn't work out! It was sooooooooo close! I didn't know they made crock pots with so many different variations in size. Good luck with a new one though... maybe you'll find one you love even more than this one! I do see older crock pots from time to time at the thrift stores, but they are invariably missing the control knob and while it would still work, would drive me CRAZY! They had the vacuum still that I wanted, and it did follow me home, but I'm still sorry this didn't work out for you!

Interesting question that got me thinking. So I did some research. My conclusion: there is no simple answer and a lot of interesting information to ponder. Here's what I've come up with so far from plowing through the research I've found. USDA conclusions about how low and how slow are not limited to sous vide, but will not apply for every cooking method, either. Basically, the ideas are valid for anything you can safely cook low and slow. "Safely" depends on a lot of factors including the particular food(s) you are cooking and how well you can avoid the possibility of cross-contamination. You certainly don't want to try this for, say, for cooking unrefrigerated home tomato preserves (what we call "home canning" over here) or anything else that might carry botulism spores. Beyond that, there seems to be be controversy over how low and how slow for any given foodstuff. Here's an example to consider if you like roast beef. Back in the 1950s, cooking gurus Adele Davis (on our side of the Atlantic) and Elizabeth David (on yours) had recipes for roast beef that (IIRC) involved 5 or more hours in a 200°F/95°C oven, followed by a brief sear of the exterior. (Maybe vice versa.) Over here, Cook's Illustrated magazine revived that low temp roasting idea in the mid-90s and even suggested going down to the 170°F temperature which was the lowest that most modern ovens could maintain (at least in North America.) Those recipes left some food safety experts and critics aghast and vociferous --- the concern being about fear of interior bacterial growth during the long time it took for the interiors of thick roasts to reach "food-safe" temperatures. Other experts felt that the problem bacteria were on the food exterior surfaces and the oven temperatures were suffient to get the surfaces hot enough and quickly enough to kill the bad bugs (or at least reduce them levels that were not a health concern. More recently, celebrity British chef and author, Heston Blumenthal, one-upped (downed?) that controversy with a recipe that called for a five hours in a 131°F/50°C oven followed by a sear of the exterior with a blowtorch. Certainly sounds like you could do these recipes in a suitable warming drawer. (Suitable meaning that the drawer maintains a relatively even temperature.) FWIW, Cooks Illustrated now recommends different techniques for slow roasting beef and and does not recommend them for poultry. The current recommendations are these. For less expensive cuts with lots of connective tissue, 250°F/120°C for five hours. For leaner and more expensive cuts (such as what North Americans call "prime rib"), 20 minutes in an oven preheated to 500°F/260°C, then shut the oven off and leave the roast to sit there (door closed) for 2½ hours or so. I've tried both recipes and both produced very good results. So far, I have not yet run across anything scientific discussing before and after "bug counts" for Blumenthal's 130°F method. (The info may be out there, I just have not found it yet.) Sounds like a science fair project. Hmmm. While I no longer have a stove with a warming drawer, my current stove's oven will hold a steady 130°/55°C temperature. I do have a blowtorch. A friend of mine is a biology professor with a lab than can measure surface bacteria levels. But, heck, maybe I should just try the recipe and see if I get sick? ;>P In the meantime, I ran across an interesting and thoughtful article from Scientific American magazine that might be of further interest. It's sort of halfway between the USDA study and Kenji Alt's simplified digest. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/complex-origins-food-safety-rules/

I also looked at those roaster ovens. Crock pots are more for making a couple of meals for a working couple. I NEED the variable digital cooking temps, delayed start and early shut off. Easy to clean exterior(the paint is coming off mine). The clamp on lid for transport, nice! I'm excited, it should arrive today! I have a rack of pork ribs & spicy BBQ sauce I'll throw in tomorrow. No regrets!