I checked the Lauritzen series sent to me a few days ago by Moberg and found more discrepancies. I originally observed a discrepancy between the figure in the source article and the figure shown in the SI to Moberg et al  as shown below.
The graphic in Nature ended in the 1930s, while the figure in the original article ended in the 1860s. Here’s the original figure (as posted up before):
When I plotted up the new data set sent to me by Moberg, it looked just the same as the figure in Nature. The data is described as follows:
column 1: Time (years) before 2000 AD
column 2: Speleothem d18O values for speleothem SG93, as described in Lauritzen S-E and Lundberg J, 1999: Calibration of the speleothem delta function: an absolute temperature record for the Holocene in northern Norway. Holocene 9, 659-669.
The data sent by Moberg begins at 2311 before AD2000. The last 4 values in the data are shown below – so the series seems to terminate in AD1938 consistent with the plot in Nature (rather than how the original article appeared.)
84.30 -7.54 3.113
69.27 -7.61 3.331
67.77 -7.48 2.925
61.79 -7.12 1.800
I looked back at the original article and found the following interesting comment:
The “ÅLittle Ice Age’ (LIA). The sample was not actively growing when collected. Since TIMS dating gave an average age of 253 years for the top 5 mm with a “Åcooling’ trend in the isotopes (Figure 7), the coldest signal (–7.12″°) here is taken as an extreme LIA signal. [my bold]
The figure in the original article shows that the "extreme LIA" signal was dated in the 19th century.
Now we can track the value of -7.12″° back into the newly disclosed data set – except this time the coldest signal (–7.12″°) is dated to 1938 – an unusual data, to say the least, for an "extreme LIA" signal. No explanation whatever is provided in the Moberg Corrigendum for this startling and very dissatisfying discrepancy.
The data file contains the following request:
 "NB! The user of this file is asked to note that, although the Indigirka series "
 "has previously been discussed in the literature (Sidorova OV, Naurzbaev MM 2002: "
 "Response of /Larix cajanderi/ to climatic changes at the Upper Timberline and "
 "in the Indigirka River Valley, Lesovedenie 2, 73-75, in Russian),"
 "they are anyway unpublished data that have not been made publicly available, "
 "as explained in the Corrigendum (Nature 439, 1014)."
 " "
 "The authors of the Moberg et al. paper therefore ask the user of this file "
 "not to publish these data anywhere, neither in printed nor in electronic form. "
 "The authors behind the Indigirka series plan to publish an updated version "
 "of their series in due time."
I’m thinking about whether that applies to graphs. For what it’s worth, the series has very high MWP and low modern values. It generically looks like the Updated Polar Urals series (rejected by Briffa and Wilson) and not at all like the hockey stick Yamal substitution.