In the main text we give the 
mark written in AF, in which the dynamic markings in this fragment – see the note in the previous bar – are more detailed as a whole than in GE. However, the exact range of the sign may raise doubts – its arms are of different length, while in an analogous situation in b. 167-168 a respective mark reaches the 2nd beat of b. 168 only, which seems to be more natural in this context (locally, f
1 is the topmost note of the melody, suspension and syncopation). Such a range of this mark, slightly shorter, is featured in FE (→EE), yet it may result from the engraver's inaccuracy.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations
issues: Inaccuracies in FE, Scope of dynamic hairpins, Inaccuracies in A
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins