Here is a question I have been thinking about since my recent addition of my last GE Miser incandescent energy saver.  The incandescent 70 Watt Misers are 1125 lumens (16.07 lumens per watt) and some Philips 72 watt halogens intended to replace a 100 watt bulb that I also have are 1120 lumens (15.55 lumens per watt).  The 95 watt GE Misers provide 1610 lumens, which is an excellent 100 watt replacement compared to a relatively stingy 1120 lumens from the 72 watt halogen.  Both types of bulbs have really nice light quality, but in terms of lumen efficiency and simplicity of design and assembly, I would rather have the GE Misers reduced wattage incandescents.

First forget all the the "100W equivalent" pseudo ratings, these are 100% BS. What matters is the lumen output. There a 1100lm lamp is by far not anything close to a 1600lm product, each is of a different use category.

With any incandescent there is always a trade off between efficacy and life time, you can not have both.
So when spare bulbs are easily available and in the installation easy to replace, the highest efficacy will give you the lowest cost per lumen.
And the other hand, if replacing the lamp is for some reason difficult (spares are made of an unobtanium, hard to reach,...), go for the higher wattage and longer life.

But there is always a catch (and here at least two):
First (related to the "100w equivalent" nonsense) using a 1650lm (consuming 95W) lamp where 1100lm (available at 70W) suffices is waste of energy and/or lifetime (if both would be the same power input, the lower lumen output type will have longer life for the same electricity cost; assume all involved types are of a good quality)

Second catch was related to halogens, but in fact it is related to all high filament temperature (so high efficacy) types:
When the lamp is cold, the filament resistance is low and so the lamp current way higher than during steady operation. That means no problem, when the filament warms up homogenously - the higher current stops once the filament warms up.
But in real life some parts of the filaments warm up quicker than others. That means the hotter parts get higher resistance while the current is still high (the current is dictated of the total resistance), the higher resistance means higher power ending up there, so warming these up even more. All that means some parts of the filament warm up above the normal filament temperature. This is normal for all incandescents operated at a voltage source.
But the thing is, with lamps designed for lower filament temperatures the extra temperature is of no big deal (it is for very brief, so tungsten evaporation is not really any problem and yet because of the low average temperature, the extra bit is still far away from the critical levels). But with lamps operated closer to the melting point the bit of extra temperatures means, the metal crystal structure starts to change. Because these changes are rather quick, they do happen at the instant the filament exceeds the critical temperature. And as Murphy always takes care, no unwanted change does anything good, here it means the filament gets more brittle and so starts to wear off way faster.
This then leads to lifetime reduction by frequent switching.
This effect is weaker till nearly nonexistent with very thick and short filaments (so the 12V lamps,...; therefore these use to be designed for higher temperature and so achieving higher efficacies) and very strong on thin, long filaments (230V low wattage halogens), leading these to rather low efficacy (for a halogen) and short lived (in frequent switched places) lamps.
And it can be eliminated if the supply incorporated some form of soft start (typically the case for lab or photo specialty equipment normally operating the filaments virtually just few degrees below melting - there the hot spot will really tend to melt).

So from the selection you present I conclude the 1150lm is enough for you, so I would go for the 70W Miser.

Over here the lamp bans are something like :

GLS 25, 40, 60W - Available the same as before

GLS 75, 100, .... - Banned

Halogen E27 - Mostly only the lower power ones available

So if i want Incandescent bright light, i'd just use a luminaire with multiple 60W lamps or 60W equiv Halogens. This is less efficient than using one big GLS lamp, but is about the only option



With R7s Halogens it is sorta funny :

The old wattages are banned :
100W
150W
200W
300W
500W

The new wattages are allowed :
80W
120W
160W
240W
400W

Except the 500W, and maybe max power rating of your luminaire (though i dont think this is a problem with Glass/Metal luminaires, high temp Glass braid wiring, and relatively small increase in power), nothing prevents you from using the next higher power lamp instead of the lower power one...

Honestly? Reduced wattage incandescent. I tried the halogen equivalents when they came out and to be honest- they did not live up to my expectations. First they burned out well before 1000 hours- the ones I used seem to last 200 to 400 hours. The light was harsh on the clear lamps, and I had two tubes rupture. The over driven concept was not meant to be. 

Perhaps this should be a new thread, but one more reason I love the old fashioned bulbs:


https://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowners/ge_light_bulbs.html

Here are some pros and cons of each type of bulb:

Energy saving incandescents (GE Miser, 70 Watts)

Pros: excellent light quality, excellent lumens rating for replacing a 75 watt incandescent, Inexpensive, better lumens per watt than some halogens

Cons: The least energy savings of any energy efficient bulb, short life at only 750 hours

Energy saving halogens (Philips EcoVantage, 72 Watts)

Pros: Excellent light quality, 28% energy savings, long life

Cons: Disappointing replacements for incandescents brightness wise, fewer lumens per watt than reduced wattage incandescents. More expensive

The GE Misers reduced wattage incandescents are the winners in my book. I don't mind replacing the bulbs more often and it doesn't get any better than classic incandescent light. Although it's rare, the halogens have an explodiing hazard that incandescents do not. It's really cool how 1990's reduced wattage technology in a simple incandescent bulb has better lumens per watt than today's halogen bulbs.

It's really cool how 1990's reduced wattage technology in a simple incandescent bulb has better lumens per watt than today's halogen bulbs.

They are supposed to have longer life, but that happens only when you do not switch them ON and OFF too often.
But thn way greater effective efficacy and life you get, when using classic concept (well, maybe the Krypton filled reduced wattage types; so those not that sensitive to switching) and always switch them ON only when you need the light and OFF otherwise.

I got rather poor live outta the philips par 38 90 watt
Floods. 

When i screwed in 90 watt wattmiser in my. Par38
Fixtures. The a19 hungarian 90 watt GE lasted  about
18 months compare to 3 months on 90 watt hallogen

It  cause it on motion detector and all that turrning on and off just eats the halogen up. Never got chance for halogen cycle to work.  And being as thin as filament
Can be.

I'd take the incandescents for these 2 reasons alone ...

* Looks (particularly if its a clear lamp)
* I've heard halogens can explode @ EOL

I'd take the incandescents for these 2 reasons alone ...

* Looks (particularly if its a clear lamp)
* I've heard halogens can explode @ EOL

Halogens exploding at EOL is not a common event, though it is possible if there is a voltage spike or if the bulb is exposed to water. Most halogen A19 bulbs (Sylvania and Philips) use thicker glass than incandescents to contain an exploding inner capsule.  I've also heard that most decent quality bulbs are fused so they will burn out safely if overdriven. 

Halogens exploding at EOL is not a common event,

That's good to know.
I just got some GE 40w equiv halogens because I didn't see any incandescent (figured they were probably better than the Walmart brand).
Does nobody make "real lightbulbs" (standard 40w incandescents) anymore??
.ug. maybe I shoulda grabbed more when the local ReStore had them

Incandescents any day! For the same reasons mentioned above. The Westinghouse Super Bulb krypton bulb can meet current EPACT standards at 1000 hours and a little more krypton. And way cheaper than the halo crap.

In terms of 100 watt replacements, I don't get how a 72 watt halogen with an unimpressive 1120 lumens is acceptable and a 95 watt incandescent with 1610 lumens is not.  The 95 watt incandescent is more efficient with about 16.95 lumens per watt.  The modern 72 watt halogen is less efficient than an older incandescent with about 15.55 lumens per watt 

Its based on the assumptions that changes of this magnitude are not noticable unless you specifically look for them (partially true), and that peeps choose lamps based on Watts and not on Lumens

That is why the 72W Halogen is intended to replace 100W GLS, if peeps do accept its light level, this means they were wasting electricity all the time they had the 100W GLS in, cause they could do with a 75W GLS

reduced wattage incandescent 100%