Amber
#520 for girls in 2025, 576 births · Last seen for boys in 2009 at #10,994
Given to girls 99.7% of the time
- Peak · girls
- 1986 · 16,954 births
- Debut · girls
- 9 births
- In top 100 · girls
- 31 yrsof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 374,690since 1880
Amber over time
Rank among girls' names. Click any year to open it.
Gaps mean fewer than 5 babies received the name that year, so the SSA doesn't publish it.
Show data table
| Year | girls | boys | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rank | births | rank | births | |
| 2025 | #520 | 576 | — | |
| 2024 | #540 | 562 | — | |
| 2023 | #575 | 519 | — | |
| 2022 | #541 | 570 | — | |
| 2021 | #534 | 579 | — | |
| 2020 | #510 | 596 | — | |
| 2019 | #480 | 653 | — | |
| 2018 | #469 | 666 | — | |
| 2017 | #403 | 782 | — | |
| 2016 | #375 | 872 | — | |
| 2015 | #334 | 978 | — | |
| 2014 | #305 | 1,064 | — | |
| 2013 | #285 | 1,114 | — | |
| 2012 | #261 | 1,237 | — | |
| 2011 | #258 | 1,238 | — | |
| 2010 | #222 | 1,419 | — | |
| 2009 | #185 | 1,775 | #10,994 | 6 |
| 2008 | #165 | 2,063 | — | |
| 2007 | #145 | 2,405 | — | |
| 2006 | #136 | 2,588 | #10,662 | 6 |
| 2005 | #101 | 3,147 | #7,096 | 10 |
| 2004 | #87 | 3,639 | #4,129 | 21 |
| 2003 | #74 | 4,123 | #9,581 | 6 |
| 2002 | #65 | 4,723 | #10,667 | 5 |
| 2001 | #51 | 5,572 | #9,243 | 6 |
| 2000 | #47 | 6,182 | #6,316 | 10 |
| 1999 | #41 | 6,841 | #5,656 | 11 |
| 1998 | #37 | 7,930 | #5,840 | 10 |
| 1997 | #29 | 8,914 | #4,059 | 16 |
| 1996 | #27 | 9,771 | #3,549 | 19 |
| 1995 | #22 | 10,965 | #3,191 | 21 |
| 1994 | #21 | 12,343 | #3,326 | 20 |
| 1993 | #17 | 14,066 | #2,786 | 25 |
| 1992 | #19 | 13,917 | #2,834 | 24 |
| 1991 | #16 | 14,992 | #2,295 | 31 |
| 1990 | #15 | 15,866 | #1,809 | 43 |
| 1989 | #14 | 16,760 | #1,392 | 62 |
| 1988 | #15 | 16,676 | #1,307 | 62 |
| 1987 | #15 | 16,749 | #1,337 | 55 |
| 1986 | #13 | 16,954 | #1,334 | 54 |
| 1985 | #16 | 15,506 | #1,452 | 46 |
| 1984 | #18 | 15,369 | #1,320 | 50 |
| 1983 | #17 | 14,892 | #1,347 | 48 |
| 1982 | #18 | 14,678 | #1,342 | 49 |
| 1981 | #20 | 13,814 | #1,236 | 55 |
| 1980 | #22 | 12,553 | #1,410 | 45 |
| 1979 | #22 | 11,079 | #1,903 | 28 |
| 1978 | #30 | 8,174 | #1,652 | 33 |
| 1977 | #33 | 7,207 | #1,904 | 26 |
| 1976 | #49 | 5,646 | #2,946 | 13 |
| 1975 | #59 | 4,683 | #2,288 | 19 |
| 1974 | #92 | 3,273 | #2,946 | 12 |
| 1973 | #130 | 2,180 | #3,694 | 8 |
| 1972 | #161 | 1,812 | #3,152 | 10 |
| 1971 | #180 | 1,721 | #3,658 | 8 |
| 1970 | #243 | 1,288 | — | |
| 1969 | #277 | 1,026 | — | |
| 1968 | #293 | 887 | — | |
| 1967 | #358 | 627 | — | |
| 1966 | #400 | 528 | — | |
| 1965 | #404 | 525 | — | |
| 1964 | #445 | 479 | — | |
| 1963 | #484 | 401 | — | |
| 1962 | #498 | 377 | — | |
| 1961 | #535 | 335 | #4,065 | 5 |
| 1960 | #589 | 282 | — | |
| 1959 | #694 | 208 | — | |
| 1958 | #783 | 163 | — | |
| 1957 | #869 | 137 | — | |
| 1956 | #908 | 122 | — | |
| 1955 | #853 | 129 | — | |
| 1954 | #933 | 107 | — | |
| 1953 | #954 | 98 | — | |
| 1952 | #887 | 108 | — | |
| 1951 | #945 | 96 | — | |
| 1950 | #971 | 87 | — | |
| 1949 | #918 | 93 | — | |
| 1948 | #923 | 88 | — | |
| 1947 | #951 | 87 | — | |
| 1946 | #833 | 98 | — | |
| 1945 | #954 | 65 | — | |
| 1944 | #1,661 | 25 | — | |
| 1943 | #1,834 | 22 | — | |
| 1942 | #1,981 | 19 | — | |
| 1941 | #1,810 | 20 | — | |
| 1940 | #1,792 | 20 | — | |
| 1939 | #1,797 | 19 | — | |
| 1938 | #1,703 | 21 | — | |
| 1937 | #2,448 | 12 | — | |
| 1936 | #1,593 | 22 | — | |
| 1935 | #1,720 | 20 | — | |
| 1934 | #1,372 | 28 | — | |
| 1933 | #2,540 | 11 | — | |
| 1932 | #2,130 | 15 | — | |
| 1931 | #1,594 | 23 | — | |
| 1930 | #1,748 | 21 | — | |
| 1929 | #1,555 | 25 | — | |
| 1928 | #1,254 | 37 | — | |
| 1927 | #1,619 | 26 | — | |
| 1926 | #1,514 | 29 | — | |
| 1925 | #1,347 | 35 | — | |
| 1924 | #1,612 | 28 | — | |
| 1923 | #1,736 | 24 | — | |
| 1922 | #1,366 | 34 | — | |
| 1921 | #1,258 | 38 | — | |
| 1920 | #1,550 | 28 | — | |
| 1919 | #1,348 | 33 | — | |
| 1918 | #1,451 | 29 | — | |
| 1917 | #1,126 | 40 | — | |
| 1916 | #949 | 52 | — | |
| 1915 | #1,075 | 39 | — | |
| 1914 | #956 | 38 | — | |
| 1913 | #901 | 35 | — | |
| 1912 | #1,218 | 19 | — | |
| 1911 | #1,241 | 14 | — | |
| 1910 | #812 | 28 | — | |
| 1909 | #935 | 19 | — | |
| 1908 | #882 | 20 | — | |
| 1907 | #760 | 24 | — | |
| 1906 | #917 | 16 | — | |
| 1905 | #872 | 18 | — | |
| 1904 | #640 | 29 | — | |
| 1903 | #1,440 | 7 | — | |
| 1902 | #1,219 | 9 | — | |
| 1901 | #918 | 13 | — | |
| 1900 | #970 | 15 | — | |
| 1899 | #983 | 11 | — | |
| 1898 | #886 | 15 | — | |
| 1897 | #826 | 15 | — | |
| 1896 | #790 | 17 | — | |
| 1895 | #788 | 16 | — | |
| 1894 | #905 | 12 | — | |
| 1893 | #767 | 15 | — | |
| 1892 | #958 | 10 | — | |
| 1891 | #893 | 10 | — | |
| 1890 | #872 | 10 | — | |
| 1889 | #950 | 8 | — | |
| 1888 | #894 | 9 | — | |
| 1887 | #788 | 9 | — | |
| 1886 | — | — | ||
| 1885 | — | — | ||
| 1884 | #930 | 6 | — | |
| 1883 | — | — | ||
| 1882 | — | — | ||
| 1881 | #830 | 5 | — | |
| 1880 | #580 | 9 | — | |
In the first year the SSA published name data, Amber was already there! It came in at #580, and was given to 9 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1881–1883, when fewer than 6 girls a year got the name.
Where Amber is popular in 1982
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- Wyoming#5 · 1 in 41
- Oklahoma#5 · 1 in 49
- Montana#5 · 1 in 51
- Utah#6 · 1 in 54
- Idaho#6 · 1 in 54
Best ever in a state: #4 in Oklahoma, 1979.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Montana | #5 | 95 | 1 in 51 |
| Oklahoma | #5 | 461 | 1 in 49 |
| Wyoming | #5 | 81 | 1 in 41 |
| Idaho | #6 | 127 | 1 in 54 |
| Indiana | #6 | 602 | 1 in 58 |
| Kansas | #6 | 279 | 1 in 56 |
| Utah | #6 | 306 | 1 in 54 |
| Arkansas | #7 | 255 | 1 in 50 |
| Nevada | #7 | 105 | 1 in 45 |
| North Dakota | #7 | 104 | 1 in 48 |
| Iowa | #8 | 300 | 1 in 63 |
| Nebraska | #8 | 170 | 1 in 63 |
| South Dakota | #8 | 95 | 1 in 50 |
| Alaska | #9 | 57 | 1 in 60 |
| Colorado | #9 | 292 | 1 in 76 |
| New Mexico | #10 | 128 | 1 in 76 |
| Oregon | #10 | 231 | 1 in 71 |
| West Virginia | #10 | 187 | 1 in 60 |
| Arizona | #12 | 249 | 1 in 81 |
| Texas | #12 | 1,307 | 1 in 99 |
| Washington | #13 | 329 | 1 in 84 |
| California | #14 | 1,612 | 1 in 115 |
| Ohio | #15 | 836 | 1 in 85 |
| Kentucky | #16 | 277 | 1 in 86 |
| North Carolina | #17 | 362 | 1 in 94 |
| Michigan | #18 | 646 | 1 in 89 |
| Minnesota | #18 | 365 | 1 in 80 |
| Wisconsin | #18 | 367 | 1 in 86 |
| Alabama | #19 | 214 | 1 in 102 |
| Florida | #19 | 476 | 1 in 119 |
| Hawaii | #19 | 47 | 1 in 109 |
| Tennessee | #19 | 306 | 1 in 92 |
| Georgia | #21 | 278 | 1 in 125 |
| Missouri | #21 | 360 | 1 in 89 |
| Mississippi | #22 | 124 | 1 in 129 |
| South Carolina | #22 | 133 | 1 in 134 |
| Vermont | #22 | 32 | 1 in 87 |
| Illinois | #25 | 574 | 1 in 130 |
| Delaware | #29 | 34 | 1 in 88 |
| Louisiana | #29 | 235 | 1 in 135 |
| Pennsylvania | #29 | 569 | 1 in 123 |
| Virginia | #29 | 249 | 1 in 124 |
| Maine | #30 | 51 | 1 in 122 |
| Maryland | #37 | 141 | 1 in 158 |
| New Hampshire | #39 | 38 | 1 in 146 |
| Connecticut | #48 | 75 | 1 in 210 |
| New York | #56 | 335 | 1 in 307 |
| Rhode Island | #68 | 17 | 1 in 277 |
| New Jersey | #91 | 87 | 1 in 440 |
| District of Columbia | #102 | 15 | 1 in 383 |
| Massachusetts | #107 | 63 | 1 in 517 |
Ranks are within each state; “1 in N” is out of the girls born there that year. The SSA only publishes a name in a state when 5 or more babies of one sex got it.
See more about Amber
- 20 spots since 2024 (#540 → #520)
- 10 spots since 2020 (#510 → #520)
- 186 spots since 2015 (#334 → #520)
- Biggest jump: 800 spots in 1904 (#1,440 → #640)
- Biggest drop: 429 spots in 1911 (#812 → #1,241)
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 1986 at #13 (16,954 births)
- Births halved by 1998, 12 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: 31 yrs · run 1974–2004
- Top 1,000: 109 yrs · run 1945–2025
- Highest: 1 in 101 girls born in 1986 were named Amber (0.99%)
- Latest: 1 in 2,790 girls born in 2025 (0.04%)
- 41.1% of all girls named Amber (153,951) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 46 | #580 (1880) | #829 |
| 1890s | 131 | #767 (1893) | #867 |
| 1900s | 170 | #640 (1904) | #955 |
| 1910s | 327 | #812 (1910) | #1,108 |
| 1920s | 304 | #1,254 (1928) | #1,481 |
| 1930s | 192 | #1,372 (1934) | #1,865 |
| 1940s | 537 | #833 (1946) | #1,366 |
| 1950s | 1,255 | #694 (1959) | #880 |
| 1960s | 5,467 | #277 (1969) | #428 |
| 1970s | 47,063 | #22 (1979) | #100 |
| 1980s | 153,951 | #13 (1986) | #17 |
| 1990s | 115,605 | #15 (1990) | #24 |
| 2000s | 36,217 | #47 (2000) | #106 |
| 2010s | 10,023 | #222 (2010) | #339 |
| 2020s | 3,402 | #510 (2020) | #537 |
All figures count published births only (names given to at least 5 girls in a year). Registrations before 1937 are incomplete, so early shares and totals run low.
Amber in 1982
Top girls' names in 1982
Top boys' names in 1982
More about 1982
girls
1,693,325 girls got a published name in 1982; 1 in 115 of them was named Amber, which outranked 99.9% of the 12,332 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 17.3% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
1,814,447 boys got a published name in 1982; 1 in 37,030 of them was named Amber, which outranked 81.8% of the 7,367 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 23.9% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
- #1,320Sanford50
- #1,320Stanford50
- #1,320Tylor50
- #1,342Amber49
- #1,342Amado49
- #1,342Barney49
- #1,342Coty49
- #1,362Ammon48
- #1,362Antwaun48
- #1,362Brandyn48
Tied with 19 names at #1,342; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.