The paper in question by Van Camp and co-authors [MVC] challenges previous work showing that ground gravity data arising from hydrology can provide a consistent signal for the comparison with satellite gravity data. The data sets used are similar to those used previously, that is, the gravity field as measured by the GRACE satellites versus ground-based data from superconducting gravimeters (SGs) over the same continental area, in this case Central Europe. One of the main impediments in this paper is the presentation that is frequently confusing and misleading as to what the data analysis really shows, for example, the irregular treatment of annual components that are first subtracted then reappear in the analysis. More importantly, we disagree on specific points. Two calculations are included in our comment to illustrate where we believe that the processing in [MVC] paper is deficient. The first deals with their erroneous treatment of the global hydrology using a truncated spherical harmonic approach which explains almost a factor 2 error in their computation of the loading. The second shows the effect of making the wrong assumption in the GRACE/hydrology/surface gravity comparison by inverting the whole of the hydrology loading for underground stations. We also challenge their claims that empirical orthogonal function techniques cannot be done in the presence of periodic components, and that SG data cannot be corrected for comparisons with GRACE data. The main conclusion of their paper, that there is little coherence between ground gravity stations and this invalidates GRACE comparisons, is therefore questionable. There is nothing in [MVC] that contradicts any of the previous papers that have shown clearly a strong relation between seasonal signals obtained from both ground gravity and GRACE satellite data.