A few years ago, an intriguing television series, Fake or Fortune?, popped up on the BBC. The conceit was as simple as a minimalist sculpture:

Find a painting of questionable authenticity. Apply forensic and historical analysis. Determine if it is a forgery.

Or as it might have been pitched:

Artistic fakery meets reality television — a perfect match!

The hosts of Fake or Fortune, journalist Fiona Bruce and art historian Philip Mould.

Over the course of three years, the series has analyzed a total of ten paintings, all (hypothetically) by master painters, including Rembrandt, Chagall, Degas, and Monet. But one name sticks out like a sore easel: Han van Meegeren. (Discussed in part one of this series, Van Meegeren was the infamous forger who became a Dutch hero by fooling uber-Nazi Hermann Goering.)

In a particularly splendid episode of Fake or Fortune?, intrepid art sleuths scrutinize “The Procuress,” a relatively obscure painting of dubious paternity. Two wildly different options are proffered as the painting’s progenitor:

Dirck van Baburen, a mostly-forgotten 17th century painter. Han van Meegeren, an infamous 20th century super-forger.

Here is the painting in question:

“The Procuress” (c. 1622 or c. 1938).

Wait. Does it look familiar?

It might, if you remember those scant 35 Vermeers from part one in this series. This animation of a renowned Vermeer, “Lady Seated at a Virginal,” might jog your memory:

Vermeer’s “Lady Seated at a Virginal” (c. 1670–72), animated to highlight “The Procuress” in the background.

If there were a 17th century equivalent of having a favorite background desktop wallpaper, “The Procuress” would have been Vermeer’s, as it was also embedded into the background of another of his celebrated masterpieces, “The Concert”:

Vermeer’s “The Concert” (c. 1664), animated to highlight “The Procuress” in the background.

Because Fake or Fortune? technically falls in the genre of reality television, a recap seems in order, spoilers intact. This episode hypothesizes (and eventually proves) a bizarre series of events:

In the 17th century, Johannes Vermeer placed a seemingly random image into the background of his paintings. In the 20th century, Han van Meegeren created a forgery of the painting found in the background of those Vermeers. In the 21st century, the museum that owns the background painting requested it be verified — as a forgery.

Why would a museum prefer a 20th century forgery over the 17th century original? Because, in the case of “The Procuress,” the copy is more valuable than the original. This scene from the show explains:

Fake or Fortune, season 1 episode 3. This is actually the entire episode, cued to a specific moment, but the whole thing is highly recommended viewing.

In other words, the Replicant wins again.