Refreshing vs unfashionable

[whatausername]

What's the difference between refreshing and unfashionable (either because a name is dated or just uncool)? I see posts suggesting, e.g., Stephen or Michael would be refreshing in a sea of Alfies. Where is the line between fresh and uncool, in your opinion?

For me it's something about the sound of the name, or the mental image they bring up. For example, I would struggle to ever see Nigel as a cool name. It's never been fashionable in my lifetime. However, something like Michael is a very old name that was popular in my memory. I see nothing wrong with using it now at all.

Tbh though it seems pretty random. I loathe some granny names which are currently popular but the hive mind seems to have decided they are cool.

Michael and Stephen are excellent names - neither refreshing nor unfashionable...just classic.

I think old timeless names that have been around for 100 years can still sound cool, however some more short lived fashionable names, mine included from the last 30-40 years or more can just sound too uncool for now.

Lots of less popular names will sound refreshing in a sea of overused fashionable names!

Michael and Stephen are classic - it's "Mike" and "Steve" that are a bit dated to me (just like Jim, Bill, Dave feel so imo whereas James, William and David are timeless according to the statistics). Thankfully many classic names have a choice of diminutives - so the medieval style ones are hip again now, such as Jem for James, Hal for Henry, Ned/Teddy for Edward, Will for William, Kit for Christopher etc.

"Refreshing" I guess depends on your point of view - for me the surname/occupation as first name, y/ie -ending diminutive as a full name and two syllable ending in O trends are starting to feel a bit boring now. So even very popular names like Henry, Thomas etc could feel refreshing in that way, nearly as much as unusual names (Orlando, Lysander etc).

Stephen or Michael would be refreshing in a sea of Alfies. Indeed they would! As would lots of other names outside the top 100.

Christopher

So even very popular names like Henry, Thomas etc could feel refreshing in that way, nearly as much as unusual names (Orlando, Lysander etc). I know soo many Henrys and Thomases - there's one in every class at our secondary school! I find both names very overused and a little dull. However Orlando and Lysander really stand out and are very memorable - I love them!

In general, if I like a name it's refreshing and if I don't it's old-fashioned or dated. Looking at names which were in the top hundred in 1904 but are't now, I'd call Frances refreshing, but Gertrude old fashioned. For a name to be refreshing, it has to sound a bit distinct from other popular names, so Minnie wouldn't be refreshing as it fits in with Lottie, Elsie and Evie, whereas Jean would stand out in a classroom. I think a name has to feel quite classic to be called refreshing: Jane, Peter, Mary feel refreshing to me in a way that Wayne and Tracey don't. I think nicknames play a part too: Pat, Mike, Dave, Sue, and Pete feel much more dated and less refreshing than Patricia, Michael, David, Susan and Peter. Possibly because we know a lot of people who are middle aged and upwards with the diminutives so the full names feel a bit fresher.

I think for me it depends whether a name is a classic which was used for a long time but has currently fallen out of popular use, or whether it was a real flash in the pan name that dates you to a particular generation.

So names like Stephen and Michael are fine - both saints' names, we had a King Stephen in the 12th century. These are names with a lot of history behind them. Colin or Gary? Not so much.

Similarly, for girls, I think Margaret is out of fashion but I would see it as refreshing. But there have been generations and generations of Margarets. Whereas a name like Sharon or Karen or Tracey or Kelly will date you.

It's very culturally specific as well. Kevin is a very old Irish name, but in the UK - and even more so in France - it was a flash in the pan name which is now dated. Same to a lesser extent with Liam. When I was trying to choose a name for my half French baby I noticed that the names Owen and Liam seem to be strangely popular in France, even though I have never met an Owen or a Liam in France. To me, Owen is a lovely old Welsh name, but I suspect that in France the baby Owens and Liams of today will be the Kevins of tomorrow.

I think Jean and Jane sound refreshing but Joan sounds frumpy, and I can't work out why.

I think it's association. If you know people with certain names, you associate it with that sort of person. So for example, a name mentioned above is my Nana's name, and so I always think of it as being an old lady name and therefore unfashionable. I also don't know any young people or children with that name. Others may disagree! I don't think there's a huge problem with having a name that is 'of it's time'- it's happened for generations, why would it be any different now? My parents and parents in law all have names which would make it quite easy to guess roughly how old they are...

I think there may be a class aspect to it. Wayne, Darren and Shane may not be back any time soon, but Jane, Rachel and Mark could be.

Also some of the least fashionable or unheard of names from a couple of generations ago seem to jump right back into Uber-hip fashion. I didn't meet an Atticus, Otto, Walter, Noah, Clara, Ruby, Cora or Margot until well into adulthood.

I suspect one person's 'refreshing' is another person's 'unfashionable' ...

I think the names of the twelve apostles are probably refreshing but those in Thomas the Tank Engine aren't (Gordon?).