We thank John Catt for his comments on our recent paper on the OSL dating of loessic (brickearth) deposits from north Kent (Clarke et al., 2007). Prof. Catt makes a number of valuable points highlighting aspects that were not adequately covered in sufficient detail in our original paper, and we thank him for the opportunity now to expand on some of these. One of the main criticisms he raises concerns the lack of evidence we presented for differentiating the upper 'non-calcareous' brickearth as a separate sedimentological unit from the lower 'calcareous' brickearth, a differentiation requiring reconsideration of earlier interpretations that the upper non-calcareous horizon represents a decalcified Bt horizon of soil developed mainly over the Holocene (e.g. Wintle and Catt, 1985;Rose et al., 2000), at least in some cases. In addition, Prof. Catt also raised concerns over the apparent limited extent of Holocene pedogenesis in the sequences that we described and, in particular, the lack of any record in our account of evidence of the highly characteristic illuvial clay accumulations (argillans) that are commonly described in southern England (including Pegwell Bay).We concede that our account of any Holocene pedogenic features may have given the misleading impression that Holocene pedogenesis was limited to 0.3 m of the sequence. In fact, a much greater amount of field and thin section mineralogical and petrographic observational information was carried out at our two study sites than was presented in Clarke et al. (2007), and is the subject of a more detailed petrographic account that is currently under review. These petrographic observations show that illuvial clay coatings around old root channels and voids are developed throughout the thickness of the upper 'non-calcareous' brickearth horizon and even into the top of the lower 'calcareous' brickearth layer. This supports Prof. Catt's view that Holocene pedogenesis should be more significant than was apparently indicated in our paper.With regard to our discussion of differentiation of the upper and lower brickearth horizons as two distinct units, this again is supported by much more petrological and mineralogical observation that was presented in Clarke et al. (2007). This involved detailed observations of grain fabrics by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), as well as high-resolution backscattered scanning electron microscopy (BSEM) and optical petrographic analysis of polished thin sections, X-ray diffraction analysis of bulk and clay mineralogy, and particle size analysis, taken through the entire sequence at both study sites. We believe that these observations support our conclusion that the upper brickearth is not a decalcified Bt horizon, and that it is sedimentologically distinct from the lower calcareous brickearth. In particular:1. SEM and BSEM petrographic analysis and XRD data show that the upper 'non-calcareous' brickearth is not entirely non-calcareous, and contains a small amount of both calcite and dolomite in the matrix. Calcareous grains, contain...