I get that it heats very evenly, but I'm questioning what advantage that has in real world applications over other good cookware. I also get that it reacts quickly to temperature differences, but so does my bottom-of-the-line All-Clad; if something looks like it's about to burn or boil over, turning the heat down results in an instant reaction when cooking over gas or with induction. I can't imagine copper is practically better in this respect either. The OP is cooking on electric, which is garbage for responsiveness regardless of the cookware being used. For crust on proteins, the main thing that matters is delivering a thermal-wallop, which can be easily achieved with thicker carbon steel, cast iron, or something like All-Clad D7. And I don't think that copper really qualifies as easy maintenance compared to stainless clad cookware. I remember someone asking culinary technologist Dave Arnold about copper cookware on an episode of Cooking Issues. He said that you should only buy it if you really like to clean things. That accords with my experience. They discolor very quickly, and that would drive me bonkers. The benefits, while there on paper, don't seem like they're worth the monetary or maintenance costs. And it's not especially more durable than All-Clad, carbon steel, or cast iron. I still don't know of an application where I'd strongly prefer a copper pan to an alternative. It may be marginally better than other cookware, but does that margin translate into something that's appreciably better in practice?
Tinned copper is right out, since tin melts at 450F. But +1 on carbon steel and cast iron, though I don't see the practical point in paying a bunch of money for either. I'm partial to Darto carbon steel pans, since they're rivetless and don't cost an arm and a leg. The artisan brands like Blu Skillet sure are pretty, but I don't think that they perform any better than their rivals. If I had infinity billion dollars, I'd buy plenty of them for aesthetic reasons (but those aren't culinary reasons). It's like buying hand-forged nails over factory-produced nails.
For cast iron, I like Lodge just fine. It's thicker than vintage, but mass is why I reach for cast iron in the first place. It's not polished smooth, but I have not noticed an empirical difference in nonstick capability. I think most of the "pebbly surface = sticky surface" gossip is based on intuition rather than experience. At least, my experience doesn't reveal a difference. Maybe I'm just lucky.
The reactivity of cast iron and carbon steel is a slight liability. I've ruined more than one dinner by introducing acidic ingredients into the equation. This also stripped the seasoning, which was annoying and time-consuming to repair. That's where very thick clad cookware like D7 comes in handy. Massive but non-reactive for those occasions where you need both. I seldom need both of those properties at the same time, which is why I cook with carbon steel so often.
Anyway, I'm still not sure exactly what the OP is looking for in an upgrade from his All-Clad frying pan. He mentions getting some more heat responsiveness, which copper has... but he's also using an electric range and that negates most of those benefits (which were marginal in the first place). He also mentions that low maintenance would be nice, but copper isn't especially great in that regard either. But like others have suggested, if the OP doesn't have a carbon steel fry pan, that might be a good first step.