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. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor

Title & dedication in FC

Title & dedication in GE1

Title & dedication in GE2 (→GE3)

Title & dedication in FE

Title & dedication in EE1 & EE3

Title in EE2

Our suggestion

..

In the main text, we give the title and dedication after the title page of the entire Opus in FC and FE.
See the Etude in A major, No. 1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Dedications , GE revisions

b. 1

composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor

in FC, EE & GE2 (→GE3)

in FE & GE1

..

The use of  time signature surprises only in GE1, as in FE the  indication was not used in the Etudes – contrary to the manuscripts – at all, neither in Op. 25 nor in Op. 10 and the Etude in F minor, Dbop. 36 No. 1 (cf. also the Impromptu in A major, Op. 29). In any case, the correctness and authenticity of the  time signature is unquestionable due to the compatible version of FC and EE. The correct time signature was returned in GE2 (→GE3). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Changes of metre , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , 4/4 or 2/2

b. 1

composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor

No fingering in FC (→GE), FE & EE1

Fingering in EE2 (→EE3)

..

The fingering added in EE2 (→EE3) is non-authentic, although undoubtedly correct. Cf. bar 27.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 7-8

composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor

 in FC (→GE1)

 in FE & EE

 in GE2 (→GE3)

..

It is unknown who interpreted Chopin's notation more accurately – Fontana in FC (→GE1) or the engravers of FE and EE. The version of GE2 (→GE3) is certainly non-authentic (and erroneous). The authenticity of the version of FC is additionally supported by the compatibility of the range of the hairpins in both analogous places (here and in bars 53-54).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 8

composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor

a in FC (→GE) & EE2 (→EE3)

a in FE & EE1

..

It is hard to assume how the difference between the versions of FE and EE1 and these of FC (→GE) and EE2 (→EE3) occurred. In FC, the naturals introducing are written by the copyist, which means that they were present in the manuscript, probably an autograph copied by Fontana. Therefore, the absence of these signs in FE and EE1 could be explained by their later deletion by Chopin in the base texts to these editions. Hence a regular, chromatic progression of minor thirds in the middle voices would be then introduced only in bar 54 as a kind of variation of the repetition of this place. However, not being certain if it was so – the versions of FE and EE1 could have been results of mistakes – in the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic version of FC (→GE). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Last key signature sign