Issues : Errors of A

b. 38-40

composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

..

The sources lack in some necessary cautionary accidentals – the fully correct text is only in GE4 (→GE5). If we take into consideration the logic of the figuration's structure, all these situations may be considered as obvious oversights, in spite of the fact that in a few cases the harmonic relations would allow to consider the created chords as possible. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 38

composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

..

Before the top note on the 7th semiquaver, the  returning f is only in GE4 (→GE5). It means the sound of f in AI and in the aforementioned GE, and in the remaining sources. However, there is no doubt that the missing  is Chopin's oversight, related to the correction on the 2nd semiquaver.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 65-66

composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

Tie to f1 in AI, GE1a (→GE2GE3GE4GE5) & EE3 (→EE4)

No tie in A (→FEGE1,EE2)

Our variant suggestion

..

In A (→FEGE1,EE2) lack of the tie sustaining f1 may be Chopin's oversight. In AI the bars are marked as repetition of bars 4-5 (or 12-13), in which f1 is sustained. In A the repetition of the initial fragment of the Etude is written with visibly less concentration; moreover, the proofreading of FE was also less accurate in this fragment (cf. e.g. bars 67 and 69).
On the other hand, the version of bar 67 written in A constitutes a repetition of the figure in bar 66 one fourth higher, which is even more audible when f1 at the beginning of this bar is repeated. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that Chopin omitted the tie of this note on purpose. However, while proofreading FE, in bar 67 the composer eventually resigned from the strict repetition of the previous bar, hence it cannot be excluded that also in the case of sustaining the discussed note, he could have wanted to return to the original concept, although he did not mark it in the proofreading. Taking into account the aforementioned possibilities, in the main text we leave the inclusion of the slur at the discretion of the performer. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of A