Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 276

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

 in GC

- - - in FE

No markings in EE

 and - - in GE

..

In this bar in FE the diminuendo continues, while GC (→GE) has the hairpin mark  . It is difficult to find a convincing explanation behind that difference. For our main text we adopt the version of FE in order to maintain consistency with bar 279. Lack of markings in EE is probably accidental (see the note to bar 275). The dashes that can be seen in GE, prolonging the scope of the dim. are definitely erroneous.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 276-277

composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major

accel. in FEG & FE, literal reading

accelerando in GE

accelerando in EE

..

According to us, the accel. indication written by Chopin in FEG should be understood as "over the 1st quaver in bar 277" and not "from the last quaver in bar 276". This is how it was understood in GE and this is the interpretation we adopt in the main text. The entry underlying the version of FE must have looked similarly. We develop the abbreviation used by Chopin, which is used less frequently nowadays; GE and EE already include the full indication.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE , Authentic corrections of EE

b. 276-281

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

Pedalling in GC (→GE)

Only  in FE

Pedalling in EE

Our variant suggestion

..

It is not clear how the difference in pedal markings arose between GC (→GE) and FE. Possible are both the oversight of  by the engraver of FE and the mistaken placement of the sign by the copyist. Chopin also could have crossed  out in [A] after GC had been prepared. Considering the authenticity and chronology of the two source versions as uncertain we suggest a variant solution in the main text.
The sign in EE, despite of its apparent accordance with GC, seems to be a reviser's addition – the sign is different in form from other similar signs. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: No pedal release mark

b. 276-277

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

Slur up to beginning of bar 277 in GC & FE (contextual interpretation)

Slur up to beginning of bar 276 in GE

Slur up to end of bar 276 in FE (literal reading→EE)

..

Leading the slur in GC until bar 277 is obvious, in spite of the lack of the slur's ending in a new line – in bar 276 (at the end of the line) both the slur and the tie of bgo far beyond the bar line and none of them is finished afterwards, which points to an oversight of the person who was writing. The fact of shortening the slur in GE must be then considered a missed revision. In FE the situation is analogous to GC – both curved lines, reaching the end of the line in bar 266, suggest continuation, which, however, does not follow (FE4 finished the tie). In spite of this, the engraver of EE interpreted each of these curved lines differently – the tie is led to bin bar 277 but the phrase mark only to bar 266.
From the practical point of view, all three notations mean the same thing.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 276

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

..

Same as in analogous bar 128, in A there is no accidental before the crotchet in the middle voice. It must be an oversight, corrected already in GE1 (→FEEE, →GE2).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omission of current key accidentals , Authentic corrections of GE , Last key signature sign , Inaccuracies in A