Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 216

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

2 staccato dots in A, probable reading

No marks in remaining sources

8 staccato dots suggested by the editors

..

Both dots visible in A over the first two R.H. semiquavers are quite far from the notes and clearly not in the same line (vertically speaking); therefore, one wonders whether they are not accidental spots. However, the dots are clear and regular, while the shifts with respect to the notes they probably concern are similar both in terms of distance and direction. Therefore, we assume that they are staccato dots with which Chopin indicated a slightly different type of articulation – most probably lighter – of the  semiquavers. In the main text, for the sake of clarity, we suggest adding dots in the entire 1st half of the bar.
The markings were not included by GE1 and the remaining editions, perhaps due to the atypical placement described above. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE

b. 224

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

4 R.H. staccato dots in A, literal reading

R.H. wedges & dots in A, contextual interpretation

16 wedges in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)

8 wedges & dots suggested by the editors

16 wedges & dots, our alternative suggestion

..

As with bar 216, the interpretation of the staccato markings in A is problematic, since the difference between the particular markings, so clear in bars 208-211 (wedges and dots), concerns only the size of the markings in this case – the dots over the 1st and 3rd semiquavers are clearly bigger than those over the 2nd and 4th ones. We consider it a consequence of carelessness and interpret it after the initial bars in this variation. In the main text we suggest adding respective markings in the L.H. part as well.
We regard the use of wedges only in the editions as a consequence of the arbitrary decision of the engraver of GE1. The addition of markings (wedges) in the 2nd half of the bar also seems unnecessary; we suggest the version with wedges and dots with necessary changes only as an alternative solution.  

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Wedges

b. 230

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

4 staccato dots in A

16 wedges in GE (→FE,EE)

8 R.H. wedges in FESB

..

As with bar 224, it seems highly unlikely that the replacement of the four dots (emphasising in A the final melodic idea in this phrase) with wedges (reminding that the variation should be performed staccato) was introduced by GE1 under the influence of Chopin. In this edition this bar opens the page, which could have prompted the engraver (reviser?) to reinterpret the Chopinesque markings in such a way (markings that could be considered incomplete, cf. the adjacent note). The absence of wedges in the L.H. part in FESB is most probably the engraver's mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Wedges , Errors in FESB

b. 240-254

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 242-247

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Wedges in b. 242 & 247 in A (→GE1EE,GE2FESB)

Wedge in b. 247 in FE

Wedge in b. 242 in GE3

Wedges in b. 242, 244 & 247 suggested by the editors

..

At the beginning of bars 242, 244 and 247 some – in bar 244 all – sources omit the wedges over the 1st L.H. octave. These are the engravers' mistakes or Chopin's oversight. We provide all 3 marks in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE