  The proceeding comment raises a few points concerning our paper Dantchev
\textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. E. {\bf 89}, 042116 (2014). In this reply we stress
that while Refs. Diehl \textit{et al.} EPL {\bf 100}, 10004 (2012) and Phys.
Rev. E. {\bf 89}, 062123 (2014) use three different models to study the the
Casimir force for the $O(n \rightarrow \infty)$ model with free boundary
conditions we study a single model over the entire range of temperatures, from
above the bulk critical temperature, $T_c$, to absolute temperatures down to
$T=0$. The use of a single model renders more transparent the crossover from
effects dominated by critical fluctuations in the vicinity of the bulk
transition temperature to effects controlled by Goldstone modes at low
temperatures. Contrary to the assertion in the comment, we make no claim for
the superiority of our model over any of those considered by Diehl \textit{et
al}. We also present additional evidence supporting our conclusion in Dantchev
\textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. E. {\bf 89}, 042116 (2014) that the temperature
range in which our low-temperature analytical expansion for the Casimir force
increases as $L$ grows and remains accurate for values of the ratio $T/T_c$
that become closer and closer to unity, while $T$ remains well outside of the
critical region.
