I have a three-year age gap and an 18-month age-gap. I have to say that I
like the three-year age gap the best. The 18 month age gap girls don't get
along at all and fight *all* the time. The three year girls are much better
in tune with each other and play very well together. But, you never know
what you are going to get, you just have to deal with what you've got. I
liked the 3-yr gap because the oldest was old enough to understand what was
going on, she could entertain herself for periods of time when I was busy
with the baby and old enough to help me out a lot. Good luck with whatever
you decide. Do remember though that once they are old enough to be in school
that things get really busy and hectic and expensive. So if you like kids to
be pretty much in the same stage at all times and needing the same things,
then the younger ages closer together is best, but if you need time to go
through each stage and do things at different times, then a larger age gap
might be best.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

"T Flynn" wrote in message
...
The more than one kid thread is getting me thinking about possible spacing
options. I'm interested in your personal experiences, but I have some
extra data:

I'm going to be 40 next year. Kay was born this February. Should I try
to have any siblings for Kay fairly quickly because I'm going to continue
being ever-more Advanced Maternal Age? I had anemia, hip problems and
calcium problems during pregnancy, so I'm not sure the six month mark will
be adequate for "recouperation" before we start trying again.

I'd really prefer to have more than one kid now that we have her. I'm not
crazy about her being an only child. I cannot help but think, though,
that we started out with the best! (And this ensures that in future years,
her siblings will Google this article. I just know it.:^))