Another point needed to be considered: how does Roger’s print of Castrucci’s op. 1 in 1718 compare to other prints by Roger of this period, in terms of ornament signs? A perusal of the prints in the 1710s and early 1720s reveals that Castrucci’s op. 1 seems to be the only print in which ‘+’ and ‘t’ coexist.9 All other prints contain either '+' (e.g. Dandrieu op. 2, Loeillet op. 2, 3 and 5, Venturini op. 1, Manfredini op. 2), 't.' (e.g. Bonporti op. 10, Dall’Abaco op. 3, Giuseppe Sammartini and Alessandro Marcello in Roger’s XII Concerti a 5), 'tr' (e.g. Dall'Abaco op. 1, Vivaldi op. 3), 'squiggly line' (e.g. Piani). In Händel’s op. 1, an unauthorized print (most probably engraved by Walsh)10 most likely originating by piecing together a variety of manuscripts, both ‘tr’ and ‘t’ are found. All of the above may suggest that Roger (and/or his engravers) treated the manuscripts with some degree of individuality, not necessarily uniformly ‘translating’ everything into a preconceived mold, in that case only printing ‘+’ or ‘t’.
It is however important to point out that the vast majority of Roger’s prints contains either no ornament signs at all, or only cadential trills, so Castrucci is not only an exception in the kinds of ornament signs it contains (‘t.’, ‘+.’, ‘m.’, appoggiaturas) but also, and especially, in the fact that ornaments are indicated, and in such profusion.
The concomitance of ‘+.’ and ‘t.’ in the Roger print of 1718 and their placement throughout the print is very puzzling. Furthermore, it is not usual for a ‘+’ to be followed by a ‘.’: dots are usually used for abbreviations (e.g. ‘t.’ for ‘trillo’).11
At first glance, these signs (which in other contexts would represent the same ornament, a trill) seemed to be different graphic representations of different ornaments; for example: one a trill, the other a mordent.