The latter two are superior IMHO. Have you ever considered using a red filter instead? It affects skintones signifigantly more than other portrait attributes, and can help wash out skin like this yet retain midtones in other areas (but then, or course, you HAVE to shoot in B&W mode). Or you can drop out the red layer before you convert to B&W too. For example, the transition zone is the har from dark to light is a little compressed in the last one IMHO. I like the hair in #2.
But on another level, there is no such thing as being "too 'shopped." Before Photoshop, we did the same manipulations in the darkroom. Did you ever see Marc Foucault's image of the Mont-Saint-Michael in France, where he soaked the negative in hot water until the emulsion ran? Awsome.
I can remember cutting up 6x6 PC filters and making 3-part filters that were part PC5 and part PC1 because I wanted higher conrtrast on one part of the image and less on another. Today, I have a few recent images where the response curve looked like a drunken rattlesnake by the time I was through. Big deal. At the other extreme, I remember a nutcase (yes, you'll agree in a minute) who shot only large format, and had over 50 lenses... many low quality or very old. He refused to ever use a filter - said is was 'cheating.' If he wanted a softer focus, he would choose a lens that was lower quality, or older and full of dust internally. No kidding.
A tool, is a tool, is a tool. The ONLY thing that matters to the image is the end product. The only one who should care about the process is you, and how your workflow is efficeint for you.
That's my $0.02. If you paid more, you paid too much.
Model is Shannon