I have obviously been very critical of the 11th century portion of the Polar Urals dataset used in Briffa et al. , without which Jones et al  does not have a cold 11th century (and which is a staple of other studies). It turns out that Schweingruber collected new subfossil samples for this site in 1999, which are dated back to 778 and have replication in the 11th century. If my hypothesis were correct, then the new information should diverge significantly in the 11th century.
A curiosity first. The data set that I’ve worked with – which ties in to what Briffa used – is russ021. It has archived measurements, but (anomalously) no archived chronology. The new samples ahve an archived chronology at russ176, but no archived measurements in the russ sequence. However, there is a duplicate archive of Schweingruber’s data and the series "POLURULA" corresponds to what should be russ176.
First, I show below "grass plots" for the Briffa data set collected in 1991 and second the 1999 dataset. The third and fourth panels show respectively a Shiyatov dataset collected in 1968 and spruce (rather than larch) at Polar Urals. I’ve shown pictures from time to time of medieval subfossil stumps located above modern treeline. The russ176w series looks like it must have been taken above modern treeline – the last sample is dated in 1892. The relative strength of medieval growth can be discerned quite easily here – with some trunks obviously much exceeding modern trees in girth.
So what is the effect on RCS "chronologies". First, I am making no adjustment for altitude, although the (presumbale) higher altitudes of russ176w would make this effect even greater. First, for review, I show (my) emulations of the ring width and MXD chronologies for russ021 (the Briffa version). If you recall, 1032 was supposed to be the "coldest" year of the millennium (from the MXD version) and the early 11th century notably cold.
Figure 2. RCS RW and MXD chronologies for russ021 (similar to Briffa et al 1995)
Next I show the new chronologies incorporating russ176 data with russ021 data. The 11th (and 15th)centuries are higher for both RW and MXD.
Figure 3. RCS RW and MXD chronologies for russ021 and russ176 combined
Finally here is the difference between the two versions: combined – Briffa 1995.
Figure 4. RCS RW and MXD chronologies – difference between russ021 and russ176 combined and estimated Briffa 1995.
These differences do not appear to make any difference to the 19th and 20th century values and thus to the temperature calibration. They do make a big difference to the 11th century values – perfectly consistent with my hypothesis that the Polar Urals material in the 11th century portion of russ021 was misdated. (The misdating is not corrected here – it’s just compensated for by replication. The true effect is probably even greater) .
I find it impossible to believe that Briffa and/or Schweingruber did not check the impact of the russ176 samples on their Polar Urals reconstruction. If this were a mining promotion, when you did new sampling pertaining to an important study and the samples, you would have to report the new results. In this case, Schweingruber at least archived the data, although the data was inexplicably not transferred to the main WDCP archive.
If the results showed an even colder 10th and 11th century, what do you want to bet that we’d have heard about the new samples? As it stands, if I re-run Jones et al just with the new Polar Urals data, it will have a warm 11th century – guaranteed. The Hockey Team are really something.