[name]Just[/name] tossing around the sweet name [name]Amy[/name] in my head. [name]Do[/name] you think it is classic or Dated? What middle names would be a good fit? Such a sweet name with a sweet meaning 
I’m not really sure. In once sense it feels very dated as I went to school with a quite a few. In another sense though it’s a short, sweet, classic.
I’m torn. I’ll say it depends on the combo as a whole.
I am not sure what middle name would fit?? Maybe:
[name]Amy[/name] [name]Josephine[/name]
[name]Amy[/name] [name]Rebecca[/name]
Ideas??
Dated for sure!
Ack- just read a few post down, a little girl named [name]Amy[/name]-[name]Louise[/name]! That is precious!!
Last night I was watching [name]Little[/name] women, with my [name]Little[/name] women 
and it brought the name to mind… a sweet little [name]Amy[/name]… I mean, I almost have to say the fact that it is in [name]Little[/name] women makes it a classic.
I saw the combo [name]Amie[/name] [name]Charlotta[/name] a while back. I think it’s adorable and more modern.
[name]Amy[/name] [name]Louise[/name] is so cute.
I think it’s a classic that was well used in the 1970s. It feels a bit dated, the same way [name]Emma[/name] might in 30 years, but both are true classics. I like it a lot, but I think I’ve liked all the names you’ve been considering =)
[name]EDA[/name]: I just looked up it’s popularity in 2012 and see that it ranked at #144. To me that means it’s very usable still.
I think for 20-30 somethings it’s dated, but for current babes it won’t be. I’m in my late twenties and see [name]Joan[/name] as dated, even though it was about the same amount “before my time” as [name]Amy[/name] would be for 2010+ babies. Current babies will likely see [name]Ashley[/name], [name]Emily[/name], and [name]Brittany[/name] dated the way I see [name]Joan[/name], [name]Karen[/name], [name]Linda[/name], [name]Susan[/name], [name]Donna[/name]…
I would call it a new classic on a downturn, and put it in line with [name]Lauren[/name] and [name]Nicole[/name] from the 1980s, [name]Shannon[/name] and [name]Lisa[/name] from the 1970s, [name]Julie[/name] and [name]Angela[/name] from the 1960s.
Wow! #144… I am surprised! O.K., question? would an [name]Amy[/name] fit with : [name]Maggie[/name], [name]Kelsey[/name]-[name]Rose[/name], [name]Emma[/name], [name]Mary[/name]-[name]Elizabeth[/name], [name]Sophie[/name]-[name]Claire[/name], [name]Sarah[/name]-[name]Katherine[/name] and [name]Serena[/name]?
I wouldn’t call [name]Amy[/name] 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, [name]Nicole[/name] and [name]Lauren[/name] never ranked before the 1940s. [name]Shannon[/name] and [name]Lisa[/name] didn’t rank the until the 1930s. [name]Julie[/name] and [name]Angela[/name] have ranked since the 1880s but I’m not sure they are new classics either.
[name]Amy[/name] is classic, not any more dated than [name]Julia[/name]. It’s just rather vanilla imo. Needs a sleek, interesting middle name.
[name]Amy[/name] [name]Lux[/name]
[name]Amy[/name] [name]Winter[/name]
[name]Amy[/name] [name]Bianca[/name]
[name]Amy[/name] [name]Elva[/name]
[name]Amy[/name] [name]Niamh[/name] (or [name]Amy[/name] [name]Neve[/name])
[name]Amy[/name] [name]Delta[/name]
[name]Amy[/name] [name]Quince[/name]
[name]Amy[/name] [name]Valora[/name]
[name]Amy[/name] [name]Lemon[/name] (Call me crazy, but I think a name as normal as [name]Amy[/name] really needs something zesty in the middle)
I agree, it would need an interesting middle name, but… I would still need something classic, vintage, along those lines…
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 [name]Amy[/name] was pre-1800s (not an easy way, anyhow). I wouldn’t put [name]Amy[/name] in the same category as [name]Elizabeth[/name], [name]Catherine[/name], [name]Margaret[/name], [name]Jane[/name], or [name]Isabella[/name] 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 [name]Amy[/name] is not as classic as [name]Elizabeth[/name] or [name]Catherine[/name]. 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, [name]Amy[/name] while dating to the Middle Ages wasn’t widely used before the middle of the 19th century.
Lo- I just have to tell you, I love all of your names Also ADORE Grace Elizabeth 
Thanks so much! I’m always so happy when you are expecting again. I’m praying my heart out that we get to use [name]Grace[/name] [name]Elizabeth[/name].
Thank you I will be praying you are able to use it too
Really like [name]Amy[/name] [name]Grace[/name]… but hate to use [name]Grace[/name], again- as much as I love it, and would love to use it, LOL!
It feels a bit dated to me, but not bad like [name]Carol[/name] or [name]Stephanie[/name] (b/c it is more classic). My young daughter is really great friends with two sisters named [name]Beth[/name] and [name]Amy[/name] (like in [name]Little[/name] Women).