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. 127

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

 in Atut

No sign in FE (→GE,EE)

..

The missing  in FE (→GE,EE) must result from distraction of the engraver of FE

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 128

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

..

In Atut, there is no  lowering f2 to f2, which was corrected already in FE (→GE,EE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Omission of current key accidentals , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 130

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Long accent in Atut

Short accent in FE (→GE,EE)

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 133

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

..

The g-eminim is devoid of extending dots in Atut. This patent mistake – eis, after all, extended to the next bar – was corrected already in FE (→GE,EE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , FE revisions

b. 134

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

on first beat in Atut

on 3rd beat in FE (→GE,EE)

a on 1st & 3rd beat suggested by the editors

..

In Atut, one can see traces of corrections (erasures), as a result of which some places were spilled with ink, so that it is unclear what is actually written on the top stave. However, since the clearly visible elements perfectly correspond to the orchestral part of FEorch (→GEorch), it is this version that we adopt as the text of Atut. In turn, the text of the editions, clearly different, does not bear traces of corrections in print in FE, which, however, does not mean that there were none – adding an element, e.g. a note, did not have to leave any trace. According to us, the following scenario is likely, among other things – the engraver of FE overlooked the dotted minim on the bottom stave, which was corrected by Chopin, who added an crotchet on the 3rd beat of the bar. Both source versions can be considered intended by Chopin. Then again, taking into account the probably most reliable elements of both versions – playing on the 1st and 3rd beats of the bar, in the main text we suggest a version including both.   

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Authentic corrections of FE