The Pretty Price Check: Your Friday round-up of how much we paid for beauty last week.

• $735: The price of Clive Christian No. 1 Pure Perfume, which Bella Sugar says is the world’s most expensive fragrance — and continue to sell well, despite the recession and its weirdly Renaissance Faire-inspired packaging.

• 2013: When Europe bans all cosmetic testing on animals. (Nice one, Europe.) Scientists are developing a chip that can be used for cosmetic allergy testing instead of Fluffy. (Via Jezebel.)

• $1.7 billion: What Shiseido paid to acquire Bare Escentuals. Will the company that brings us placenta face creams change Bare Escentuals’ light green style? (Via Cosmetic Business.)

• 1 in 5 women in Mauritania undergo “gavage,” a torturous process that involves squeezing a young girl’s toes between sticks while force-feeding her mixtures of millet, milk and butter so she’ll gain enough weight to attract a husband. (Check out National Geographic’s disturbing  video here.) Proof that beauty standards are range from absurd to cruel wherever you go* — and we need to think global as well as local to change things.

• $1 million: The amount Avon is committing to Haiti disaster relief. Thumbs up for good corporate citizenship, though my inner cynic would be happier if these companies just sent the checks and didn’t need to issue press releases about it at the same time.

• 15 percent: How much sales of medical beauty treatments (think Botox, laser hair removal and boob jobs) dropped in 2009. Don’t get too excited — the industry says it will be rebounding by five to ten percent per year through 2013. That’s keeping your chin up (and tucked).

• $200: What this Real Simple blogger is contemplating paying for a haircut. A couple of you commented last week that the high price tag is why you expect a pretty high level of life-changing customer service when you go to a salon. What’s the max you would pay for a great haircut — and why?

*Because meanwhile, Mad Men star Christina Hendricks is getting slammed post-Golden Globes as “a big girl in a big dress.” Yup, at the same time women’s magazines are falling all over themselves to feature scantily clad “plus-size” (that would be “normal weight and still unattainably attractive”) models, and promise it’s more than just a token gesture. Square one, here we are again.

I’d be completely depressed if it weren’t for this brilliant trio of posts: Jezebel on how it’s creepy that plus-size models are always naked, and Salon and Change.org on why the media debate over the beauty of “real women” is so troubling.

On that uplifting note, have a great weekend!