The interpretation of the 
hairpin is problematic due to the fact – typical of Chopin – that the f1 semibreve was placed between the 3rd and 4th quavers in b. 16. Consequently, with respect to the L.H. quavers, fills the 1st half of the bar; at the same time, however, it reaches only slightly beyond f1, if we look at the R.H. part. As the notation of A clearly indicates the R.H. as the addressee of the discussed mark, in the main text we place it between the e1 quaver and the f1 semibreve. The engraver of FE (→EE) linked the mark to the L.H. part; in addition, he arbitrarily prolonged it (perhaps confused by the contact of the bottom arm of the hairpin with the L.H. slur, which reaches the end of the bar). In turn, it is difficult to find the reason why the clear mark was replaced by an accent in GE; however, one has to admit that the sonic result related to the latter is much more closer to the one intended by Chopin than the distorted of FE. The version of CGS must be an inaccurately reproduced mark of FE, but the fact that it begins earlier and that it is not explicitly related to the L.H. brings it closer to the meaning intended by Chopin.
Such short or even reversed long accents, emphasizing the second note of an ascending second, are often to be encountered in Chopin's works, e.g. in the Prelude in G No. 3 , b. 17-18 as well as in the Concerto in E Minor, Op. 11, 2nd mov., b. 29 or the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 2nd mov., b. 84 (in the last example the mark was similarly wrongly interpreted as in the Prelude).
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources
issues: Inaccuracies in FE, Scope of dynamic hairpins, GE revisions, Inaccuracies in A
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins