In this paper by Mueller and colleagues, the authors address the dating of glacial and periglacial sediments in the Alps. As is the case in many glacial contexts, the dating of peri-/glacial sediments has been reported as problematic in terms of luminescence dating. This paper provides the detailed testing of coarse grain quartz and feldspar and fine grain quartz and polymineral luminescence signals in an attempt to resolve phases of glacial advance in the northern foreland of the Swiss Alps. Whilst the paper identifies valley fill in the area at least back to MIS6, discrepancies between the various dating signals are identified and as yet remain unresolved.

I am satisfied that this paper goes beyond a ‘routine’ dating study (and I echo Sebastian Kreutzer’s comments that there is nothing at all wrong with routine dating studies), and therefore I believe it suitable for publication in Geochronology. This paper demonstrates that luminescence dating is more than an ‘off-the-shelf’ dating technique, and that efforts to interrogate the signals being dated are key in developing chronologies in geomorphic contexts which traditionally have been a challenge for luminescence daters.

I thank both reviewers for their detailed reviewers, and believe that the authors have provided a satisfactory response to provide an improved manuscript. There are a couple of comments in Sebastian Kreutzer’s review which I agree are still relevant, although the authors haven’t modified significantly their manuscript in response to these. These are i) the difficulties in undertaking fading measurements and analysing the subsequent data – this is where we are with luminescence dating currently, but it is important to acknowledge this; ii) the use of the central age model – and I highly recommend the paper of Heydari and Guerin (2018) to the authors which explores the use of the average dose model (Guerin et al., 2017). Whilst CAM is one of the most (if not the most) commonly used age models in luminescence dating, it shouldn’t be immune from supersedure; iii) acknowledgement of the complexities of dose rate calculation, in particular issues arising from disequilibrium if present and undetected. I highlight these in order that the authors may consider these issues in future research.

Further to the reviewer’s comments, I have a few minor comments:
Abstract: Please expand the abstract to summarise the suite of tests you undertook on quartz and feldspar in order to provide a chronology. At present, the abstract reads like a ‘regular’ dating paper where you used a number of different signals, and your paper goes beyond this.
L12: in order to overcome what? E.g. to provide reliable chronologies
L98: ‘deposited’ is probably more appropriate for ‘emplaced’ – assuming that’s what you mean.
L204: Please can you clarify whether your EMCCD measurements made after lab irradiation. As a comment only, I’m not surprised your detection of signals is so low, given the low sensitivity of the EMCCD system (for Riso systems at least– see Thomsen et al, 2015 DOI: 10.1016/j.radmeas.2015.02.015)
L258: Please can you provide a short sentence to summarise the key differences between the two fading procedures.
L444: For me, that not all minerals/fractions/samples are suitable for dating demonstrates the strength of your approach of systematically and testing in detail a range of signals. This is worth commenting on in your conclusion
Fig 10 caption. Can you add whether these are signals from natural or lab-irradiated signals (if so, what dose please)? Also, the size of the ROI?

Thank you for working with AE Julie Durcan and the referees. I am happy to follow her advice and accept you manuscript for publication in GChron.

I look forward to seeing the product in its final form.

Best wishes,

Andreas