Names Searched Right Now:
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 15 of 45
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,349
    Quote Originally Posted by yellow View Post
    I would call it a new classic on a downturn, and put it in line with Lauren and Nicole from the 1980s, Shannon and Lisa from the 1970s, Julie and Angela from the 1960s.
    I wouldn't call Amy a new classic at all. It's ranked since 1880 with different ebbs and flows before it's most recent peak in the late 1970s. However, Nicole and Lauren never ranked before the 1940s. Shannon and Lisa didn't rank the until the 1930s. Julie and Angela have ranked since the 1880s but I'm not sure they are new classics either.
    Last edited by lo; May 21st, 2013 at 12:49 PM.
    Mom to Paul, Clare, Mark, Katharine, James, and Andrew
    Future girl: Stella, Lucy, Grace, or Elizabeth
    Future boy: Peter or Thomas

  2. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,691
    Amy is classic, not any more dated than Julia. It's just rather vanilla imo. Needs a sleek, interesting middle name.

    Amy Lux
    Amy Winter
    Amy Bianca
    Amy Elva
    Amy Niamh (or Amy Neve)
    Amy Delta
    Amy Quince
    Amy Valora
    Amy Lemon (Call me crazy, but I think a name as normal as Amy really needs something zesty in the middle)

  3. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,443
    I agree, it would need an interesting middle name, but... I would still need something classic, vintage, along those lines....
    ~ "How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers."~ Mother Teresa

  4. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by lo View Post
    I wouldn't call Amy a new classic at all. It's ranked since 1880 with different ebbs and flows before it's most recent peak in the late 1970s. However, Nicole and Lauren never ranked before the 1940s. Shannon and Lisa didn't rank the until the 1930s. Julie and Angela have ranked since the 1880s but I'm not sure they are new classics either.
    I suppose it depends on your definition of "new" vs. "true," and public perception tends to weigh more heavily on that for me. We don't really have a way of knowing how common Amy was pre-1800s (not an easy way, anyhow). I wouldn't put Amy in the same category as Elizabeth, Catherine, Margaret, Jane, or Isabella for that matter.

    The OP asked for opinions, and that is mine. Again, regardless of stats (though I did consult SSA rankings when refreshing my opinions of the names I cited). Apologies if my opinion did not sit well with you.

  5. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,349
    Quote Originally Posted by yellow View Post
    I suppose it depends on your definition of "new" vs. "true," and public perception tends to weigh more heavily on that for me. We don't really have a way of knowing how common Amy was pre-1800s (not an easy way, anyhow). I wouldn't put Amy in the same category as Elizabeth, Catherine, Margaret, Jane, or Isabella for that matter.

    The OP asked for opinions, and that is mine. Again, regardless of stats (though I did consult SSA rankings when refreshing my opinions of the names I cited). Apologies if my opinion did not sit well with you.
    Your opinion is totally fine =) I don't think we need to apologize for seeing a name differently.

    I actually agree that Amy is not as classic as Elizabeth or Catherine. I just think that since it's been widely used for longer it has more staying power than most new classics do. According to behind the name, Amy while dating to the Middle Ages wasn't widely used before the middle of the 19th century.
    Mom to Paul, Clare, Mark, Katharine, James, and Andrew
    Future girl: Stella, Lucy, Grace, or Elizabeth
    Future boy: Peter or Thomas

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •