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. 1

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

The GE1 and GE2 copies were provided with two types of covers – some gave no information that the piece was intended for piano with orchestra (the phrase "avec accompagnement d'orchestre" was removed). The title page of GE3 explicitly informs us that it is a piece for one piano ("pour le piano seul"). The titles of the remaining editions do not contain a mention of the orchestral accompaniment, although in the case of FE1 (→FE2) one can guess that it is included due to the given prices of the orchestral material (in a full version and in a version reduced to string quartet).
In our transcriptions of GE1 and GE2 we take into account the copies providing a complete description, in accordance with A. Where only the piano is mentioned, the relevant part of the title is omitted from our transcriptions – see General Editorial Principlesp. 14.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions

b. 1-7

composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major

Crotchets in AI

Quavers in FE (→GE,EE)

..

Probably in [A], or perhaps only just while proofreading FE1, Chopin changed the rhythmic notation of the first eight-bar section – he replaced the crotchets at the beginning of bar 1, 3, 5 and 7 with quavers filled with quaver rests. In the remaining three similar phrases he left crotchets (bar 9, 11, 13, 15, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81 and 83). According to us, such a change is probably to be regarded as a clarification of performance, marked the first time but generally valid in all these places. See also bar 3

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 1

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

Quatre Ma­zurkas in FC (→GE) & FE

Souvenir de la Pologne... in EE

4 Mazurkas suggested by the editors

..

In all sources the number of mazurkas in the opus is expressed in full word – Quatre Mazurkas, yet in the main text we provide a digit, understandable regardless of the language. What is more, it cannot be excluded that in the autograph (lost) Chopin wrote a digit, as he did in the preserved autographs of opuses 24 and 50, which the French publisher did not respect in opus 24, replacing the digit with a word.

In FC the title contains a mistake – Quatre Mazurka. The title having been expanded in EE was an arbitrary decision of the publisher – all opuses of Chopinesque Mazurkas were named like that.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 1

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

No dedication in FC (→GE)

Dedication in FE (→EE)

Dedication in FE (→EE)

..

The absence of dedication in FC (→GE) suggests that Chopin decided to dedicate the Mazurkas to the Duchess of Württemberg already after having sent the copy to Leipzig; afterwards, he no longer dealt with the issue. The Duchess came to Paris the year the Mazurkas were published (1837), hence the decision concerning the dedication could have appeared relatively late in the publishing process. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Dedications

b. 1

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

in the anacrusis in FC (→GE)

in bar 1 in FE (→EE)

..

It is unclear how the difference in the placement of the initial  indication occurred. Perhaps it is just a difference in the interpretation of a mark written between the upbeat and the beginning of bar 1 – cf., e.g. the autograph of the Prelude in A, Op. 28 No. 7. In the main text we put the mark in accordance with the principal source, that is FC.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Centrally placed marks