Follow-up: "Abraham van Beyeren" may be a Pieter van Rijck after all

In October 2015, I wrote a lengthy post about a luxurious still life which was being sold in Belgium as "environment of Pieter Cornelis van Rijck", but which I described as closer to Abraham van Beyeren. Estimated at 2,000 Euro, it sold for 3,300 Euro, about a third of what I thought it was worth. 

In an update, I pointed to "Galerie FC", which sold the painting for (at first) 15,800 Euro and (later) 11,800 Euro.

A kind reader now has informed me that they have bought the Galerie FC painting, but that it is not the same as the De Vuyst work but a slightly different version.

On the right, another object (a cake) is added on the cupboard. Other differences are a lot more subtle.

Very interesting is that the work also has a signature (or more precisely a monogram), and a date. It seems to say PVR fc. 1599, which owuld logically stand for Pieter Van Rijck fecit 1599.

If this signature is authentic (and I have no way to judge this), it would mean that both works are indeed by Pieter Van Rijck (god job by the auction houses, not so much by me). Sources indicate that he indeed signed some works PVR (and used fecit and a date in them as well), so all this seems to point to a possible genuine signature.

We can compare it with a signature on a drawing in the Rijksmuseum. The basic system is the same (with the integrated P and V), the execution somewhat different, but we are comparing a fast drawing with an oil painting here, so this seems normal.

If the signature gets authenticated by some expert, this signed and dated work should be worth at least 20,000 Euro. It would also increase the value of the De Vuyst work, as that can then be compared to a real Van Rijck and possibly more firmly attributed to him as well. In any case, whoever bought that one for 3,300 Euro had a good buy for little money.

I do wonder, considering where I went wrong, whether there are any older examples of Puckelbokal still lifes, or whether this would be the first one.