If we're going simply by repertoire, the answer would be no. I'm sorry.

However, you are an adult, and if you want to try them, by all means, try them. You may find that the learning opportunities presented in the etudes are boundless. You may find your teacher is better than you thought she was. As for your first etude, I'd suggest the Ab Aeolian Harp etude, then Tristesse. Leave op. 25 no. 11 alone, that one gives everyone problems.

I'm waiting for...

No need for apologies. I asked for candor. But I'm not quite sure how I left the impression that my teacher wasn't better than I thought she was. She's certainly more than competant. As for Op 25/11, no surprise or great loss. I suspected it was beyond me. Kind of like wishing I could afford a 9 ft Fazioli (or Steinway if you prefer). Maybe in the next life !

Please don't engage in ad hominems. If you have a disagreement with the content of what someone posts, address the specific content of the specific posts. Ad hominems - especially where the subject is not even commenting in the thread - are not really appropriate.

Phlebas,

I respectfully disagree with your verdict.

My post isn’t an ad hominem attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I am simply reiterating what that person ______ usually writes as replies to similar questions. If what I wrote misrepresents what that person truly had written in previous posts, then it’s a lie/prevarication/caricature (I didn't think it was).

I didn’t attack that “person” in particular, nor had I attacked his “beliefs.”

What in my post, pray tell, was particularly an ad hominem fallacy?

Let me ask you then: What was particularly helpful about your post? Did it raise the level of discussion here, or lower it?

Hardest Group
10/10, 10/11, 25/5, 25/6, 25/10, 25/11
Steven

You probably know how frequently Chopin's etudes are discussed and dissected in the Pianist Corner (as befits such seminal works in piano music). I think it's worth reiterating that "difficulty" depends on a number of factors:

Whether one is referring to primarily to interpretive or technical challenge;
The technical skill one already has in the specific technique(s) called for;
The degree of one's technical advancement generally (and therefore, as a obvious corollary, the order in which the etudes are learned); and
For the faster etudes, whether one adheres to the original metronome markings (i.e., extremely fast) or the verbal directions (generally some variant on Allegro).
I've offered the following categorization of Opp. 10 and 25 before as a rough approximation of technical difficulty. It's just my opinion, and I freely admit that the strata overlap; some pieces in my "Harder Group" could be placed in the "Hardest Group" instead (and perhaps vice versa).

Slower Group
10/3, 10/6, 25/7

Easier Group
10/5, 10/9, 10/12, 25/1, 25/2, 25/9

Harder Group
10/1, 10/2, 10/4, 10/7, 10/8, 25/3, 25/4, 25/8, 25/12

Hardest Group
10/10, 10/11, 25/5, 25/6, 25/10, 25/11

I believe that 10/6, 10/9, 10/12, 25/1 and 25/2 are most often recommended to start with. I know that 10/3 is frequently cited as well, but I don't think it can be overemphasized how much more difficult the lengthy "B" section is than the placid outer parts.

I don't think it's a mistake to include it in that category, especially given my caveats about defining "difficulty" and my acknowledgment that etudes in my hardest group might instead be put in the next-hardest group and vice versa.

In the past, my inclusion of 10/1 and 10/2 in the Hard rather than Hardest group has been questioned, too. Though that was a deliberate choice as well, it can certainly be disputed by those with differing opinions.

I've worked on more than half of the etudes over the years, but 25/5 isn't one of them. It could be that I'll find it easier than I imagine, as was the case for me with 25/6, but even a judgment based on such experience is still subjective.

Steven

[...] I assume each one was written to address a specific technique challenge wasn't it ? Is there anything available that talks about these individually ?

Phlebas,

I respectfully disagree with your verdict.

My post isn’t an ad hominem attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I am simply reiterating what that person usually writes as replies to similar questions. If what I wrote misrepresents what that person truly had written in previous posts, then it’s a lie/prevarication/caricature (I didn't think it was).

I didn’t attack that “person” in particular, nor had I attacked his “beliefs.”

What in my post, pray tell, was particularly an ad hominem fallacy?

But really, I would avoid specific mention of THAT person for the benefit of those without a sense of humor. :P

A sense of humor at the expense of someone else is not much to brag about, and wouldn't be missed, but your avoiding it would be appreciated.

But others are less obvious (to an amateur like me anyway). I assume each one was written to address a specific technique challenge wasn't it ? Is there anything available that talks about these individually ?