I know it has had a huge leap in popularity, but is it a true classic?
[name]Just[/name] wondering, thoughts…
Thanks!
I wouldn’t call [name]Ava[/name] a classic. My definition of a classic is a name that has been consistently popular over a long period of time. There are true classics ([name]William[/name], [name]James[/name], [name]Mary[/name], [name]Elizabeth[/name]) and modern classics ([name]Michael[/name], [name]Alexander[/name], [name]Jessica[/name], [name]Alison[/name]). [name]Ava[/name] rode on the wave of names that came back into style with the hundred year rule. I have found several women named [name]Ava[/name] or [name]Avie[/name] on my family tree that were born in the late 1800s. It seems to have been fairly popular back then, and once more is very popular today. I haven’t actually looked at the statistics to back this up though.
I think it is!
A true classic name to me is one that might rise or fall from year to year, but never truly goes out of style, or feels too trendy. [name]Ava[/name] doesn’t really fit those criteria to me, as it dropped completely off the Top 1000 for several years and then had a very sharp increase in popularity between 1996 and now. Compare that to something like [name]Emma[/name], which is quite popular right now, but has always been steadily in the Top 500, and has risen to the top of the list much more gradually. I think of [name]Emma[/name] as a classic, but not [name]Ava[/name].
Interesting, as I was thinking about it… I consider [name]Susannah[/name] Classic, but it has not been on the top 1000 in quite sometime, unless you add up different versions, such as [name]Susan[/name]… hmmmm…I guess b/c [name]Ava[/name] has the age and history, I considered it classic, but I see where trendy pops in…
I knew a girl named [name]Ava[/name] in high school and fell in the love with the name so completely. I was honestly surprised to hear it had been popular back in the 1800’s. It sounded very Italian to me. It had a romantic feel to it. But I didn’t think it seemed old-fashioned! So I can’t say that I would think of it as a classic.
I went on to use it on my eldest daughter though, even though it was like #5 in popularity already.
I really like @agirlinred’s definition of a classic, consistently popular over a long period of a time. [name]Ava[/name] does not fall into that category. I would consider [name]Ava[/name] more of a vintage name. It was popular in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and then fell out of favor. Now its popular again. I love the name [name]Ava[/name] and I would not hesitate to use it for my own daughter popular or not!
I wouldn’t say it was a “true classic” at all. I like it, but as parkerbelle said, it’s more vintage.
I agree.
I was under the impression that the [name]Ava[/name] spelling was made up for [name]Ava[/name] [name]Gardner[/name], to make her name more marketable in Hollywood, and until then [name]Eva[/name] had been said like EE-vah and AY-vah pretty much equally. I googled it before I replied to this post, and according to [name]Ava[/name] [name]Gardner[/name]'s museum, her name has always been spelled [name]Ava[/name]. Still, I can’t help thinking that [name]Eva[/name] is less trendy than [name]Ava[/name]–it didn’t make a huge leap like [name]Ava[/name] did recently (although, to her credit, [name]Ava[/name] has never left the SSA list). That, and I had a friend who loved [name]Evangeline[/name] but was going to spell it Avangeline (“It sounds the same!!!”) just so she could use [name]Ava[/name] (AY-vah) as a nn. Which feels like the height of trendiness to me, so I can’t help but think of that when I think of [name]Ava[/name] compared to [name]Eva[/name]… 
I agree with the previous posters. Vintage, but not classic.