Jim
Last seen for girls in 1984 at #10,422 · #3,128 for boys in 2025, 38 births
Given to boys 99.5% of the time
- Peak · boys
- 1882 · 396 births
- Debut · boys
- 345 births
- In top 100 · boys
- 51 yrsof 146 years
- Total births · boys
- 153,122since 1880
Jim over time
Rank among boys' 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 | — | #3,128 | 38 | |
| 2024 | — | #4,433 | 23 | |
| 2023 | — | #4,002 | 27 | |
| 2022 | — | #3,412 | 34 | |
| 2021 | — | #3,180 | 37 | |
| 2020 | — | #2,925 | 40 | |
| 2019 | — | #3,052 | 39 | |
| 2018 | — | #2,994 | 39 | |
| 2017 | — | #3,123 | 37 | |
| 2016 | — | #2,783 | 43 | |
| 2015 | — | #2,809 | 42 | |
| 2014 | — | #2,154 | 63 | |
| 2013 | — | #2,182 | 60 | |
| 2012 | — | #2,238 | 58 | |
| 2011 | — | #2,145 | 61 | |
| 2010 | — | #2,100 | 64 | |
| 2009 | — | #2,183 | 61 | |
| 2008 | — | #1,719 | 88 | |
| 2007 | — | #1,830 | 79 | |
| 2006 | — | #1,536 | 97 | |
| 2005 | — | #1,535 | 92 | |
| 2004 | — | #1,394 | 102 | |
| 2003 | — | #1,348 | 101 | |
| 2002 | — | #1,191 | 117 | |
| 2001 | — | #1,265 | 105 | |
| 2000 | — | #1,152 | 120 | |
| 1999 | — | #1,215 | 104 | |
| 1998 | — | #1,068 | 123 | |
| 1997 | — | #997 | 129 | |
| 1996 | — | #874 | 157 | |
| 1995 | — | #861 | 158 | |
| 1994 | — | #807 | 171 | |
| 1993 | — | #817 | 167 | |
| 1992 | — | #740 | 195 | |
| 1991 | — | #751 | 184 | |
| 1990 | — | #685 | 219 | |
| 1989 | — | #708 | 193 | |
| 1988 | — | #644 | 215 | |
| 1987 | — | #583 | 241 | |
| 1986 | — | #597 | 222 | |
| 1985 | — | #607 | 207 | |
| 1984 | #10,422 | 5 | #540 | 256 |
| 1983 | — | #502 | 279 | |
| 1982 | — | #482 | 313 | |
| 1981 | — | #466 | 319 | |
| 1980 | — | #486 | 302 | |
| 1979 | — | #414 | 369 | |
| 1978 | — | #410 | 359 | |
| 1977 | — | #390 | 408 | |
| 1976 | — | #373 | 420 | |
| 1975 | — | #372 | 439 | |
| 1974 | — | #325 | 541 | |
| 1973 | #8,423 | 5 | #302 | 585 |
| 1972 | — | #275 | 707 | |
| 1971 | #6,006 | 8 | #246 | 934 |
| 1970 | — | #204 | 1,259 | |
| 1969 | #4,418 | 11 | #190 | 1,427 |
| 1968 | #5,642 | 7 | #177 | 1,502 |
| 1967 | #4,053 | 11 | #151 | 1,806 |
| 1966 | #6,564 | 5 | #136 | 2,197 |
| 1965 | #4,494 | 9 | #116 | 2,772 |
| 1964 | #4,355 | 10 | #101 | 3,644 |
| 1963 | #5,296 | 7 | #92 | 4,237 |
| 1962 | #4,263 | 10 | #85 | 4,715 |
| 1961 | #4,239 | 10 | #78 | 5,352 |
| 1960 | #4,773 | 8 | #75 | 5,549 |
| 1959 | #4,300 | 9 | #70 | 5,688 |
| 1958 | #3,543 | 12 | #87 | 4,921 |
| 1957 | #4,536 | 8 | #106 | 3,543 |
| 1956 | #5,952 | 5 | #148 | 2,188 |
| 1955 | #4,740 | 7 | #167 | 1,699 |
| 1954 | #3,718 | 10 | #174 | 1,593 |
| 1953 | #4,595 | 7 | #172 | 1,535 |
| 1952 | — | #172 | 1,523 | |
| 1951 | #4,385 | 7 | #164 | 1,595 |
| 1950 | #4,738 | 6 | #139 | 1,930 |
| 1949 | #4,673 | 6 | #108 | 2,725 |
| 1948 | #3,137 | 11 | #86 | 3,808 |
| 1947 | #2,898 | 13 | #77 | 4,640 |
| 1946 | #2,880 | 12 | #73 | 4,336 |
| 1945 | #2,598 | 12 | #68 | 3,625 |
| 1944 | #2,096 | 17 | #68 | 3,744 |
| 1943 | #2,558 | 13 | #75 | 3,682 |
| 1942 | #2,311 | 15 | #74 | 3,514 |
| 1941 | #3,252 | 8 | #80 | 2,843 |
| 1940 | #2,109 | 15 | #78 | 2,715 |
| 1939 | #2,038 | 16 | #75 | 2,636 |
| 1938 | #2,340 | 13 | #81 | 2,497 |
| 1937 | #3,146 | 8 | #82 | 2,347 |
| 1936 | #3,376 | 7 | #85 | 2,268 |
| 1935 | #2,095 | 15 | #90 | 2,244 |
| 1934 | #2,003 | 16 | #90 | 2,207 |
| 1933 | #2,275 | 13 | #98 | 1,875 |
| 1932 | #2,235 | 14 | #104 | 1,765 |
| 1931 | #2,105 | 15 | #116 | 1,520 |
| 1930 | #2,023 | 17 | #125 | 1,464 |
| 1929 | #1,766 | 21 | #132 | 1,290 |
| 1928 | #1,837 | 21 | #137 | 1,237 |
| 1927 | #1,935 | 20 | #136 | 1,293 |
| 1926 | #2,569 | 13 | #143 | 1,165 |
| 1925 | #2,617 | 13 | #147 | 1,124 |
| 1924 | #2,308 | 16 | #160 | 992 |
| 1923 | #2,366 | 15 | #167 | 867 |
| 1922 | #2,027 | 19 | #169 | 881 |
| 1921 | #2,509 | 14 | #165 | 879 |
| 1920 | #3,097 | 10 | #165 | 838 |
| 1919 | #2,156 | 16 | #157 | 848 |
| 1918 | #1,690 | 23 | #165 | 827 |
| 1917 | #2,204 | 15 | #163 | 774 |
| 1916 | #1,949 | 17 | #177 | 684 |
| 1915 | #1,672 | 20 | #170 | 668 |
| 1914 | #2,265 | 10 | #174 | 513 |
| 1913 | #2,164 | 9 | #154 | 473 |
| 1912 | #2,634 | 6 | #149 | 401 |
| 1911 | #1,792 | 8 | #134 | 245 |
| 1910 | #1,267 | 13 | #100 | 331 |
| 1909 | #1,607 | 8 | #105 | 259 |
| 1908 | #2,101 | 5 | #117 | 220 |
| 1907 | #2,061 | 5 | #90 | 281 |
| 1906 | — | #90 | 261 | |
| 1905 | #1,696 | 6 | #95 | 236 |
| 1904 | — | #85 | 266 | |
| 1903 | — | #83 | 257 | |
| 1902 | — | #77 | 300 | |
| 1901 | — | #81 | 239 | |
| 1900 | #1,319 | 9 | #68 | 399 |
| 1899 | #1,596 | 5 | #70 | 261 |
| 1898 | — | #77 | 269 | |
| 1897 | — | #75 | 252 | |
| 1896 | #1,122 | 9 | #71 | 281 |
| 1895 | #1,592 | 5 | #71 | 278 |
| 1894 | — | #70 | 287 | |
| 1893 | #1,277 | 6 | #74 | 255 |
| 1892 | #1,085 | 8 | #64 | 334 |
| 1891 | #1,213 | 6 | #63 | 288 |
| 1890 | #1,099 | 7 | #62 | 336 |
| 1889 | — | #58 | 328 | |
| 1888 | #1,276 | 5 | #56 | 362 |
| 1887 | — | #50 | 339 | |
| 1886 | — | #49 | 389 | |
| 1885 | — | #46 | 370 | |
| 1884 | — | #55 | 346 | |
| 1883 | — | #52 | 322 | |
| 1882 | — | #45 | 396 | |
| 1881 | — | #47 | 323 | |
| 1880 | — | #49 | 345 | |
In the first year the SSA published name data, Jim was already there! It came in at #49, and was given to 345 baby boys.
Quietest stretch: 2022–2024, when fewer than 35 boys a year got the name.
Where Jim is popular in 1962
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- Oregon#40 · 1 in 164
- Washington#40 · 1 in 179
- Montana#45 · 1 in 181
- Colorado#48 · 1 in 207
- Arizona#50 · 1 in 231
Best ever in a state: #16 in New Mexico, 1910.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon | #40 | 105 | 1 in 164 |
| Washington | #40 | 171 | 1 in 179 |
| Montana | #45 | 41 | 1 in 181 |
| Colorado | #48 | 104 | 1 in 207 |
| Arizona | #50 | 73 | 1 in 231 |
| California | #52 | 769 | 1 in 243 |
| Wyoming | #54 | 17 | 1 in 193 |
| Minnesota | #57 | 153 | 1 in 265 |
| South Dakota | #57 | 34 | 1 in 226 |
| Utah | #57 | 49 | 1 in 246 |
| Missouri | #58 | 182 | 1 in 255 |
| Kansas | #60 | 91 | 1 in 242 |
| Wisconsin | #60 | 167 | 1 in 273 |
| Michigan | #61 | 299 | 1 in 295 |
| Idaho | #63 | 29 | 1 in 241 |
| Illinois | #64 | 363 | 1 in 304 |
| Indiana | #65 | 176 | 1 in 297 |
| Iowa | #65 | 116 | 1 in 251 |
| Ohio | #68 | 300 | 1 in 352 |
| Nebraska | #70 | 55 | 1 in 294 |
| North Dakota | #70 | 24 | 1 in 286 |
| Nevada | #72 | 12 | 1 in 281 |
| Oklahoma | #80 | 71 | 1 in 332 |
| Vermont | #87 | 8 | 1 in 480 |
| New Mexico | #90 | 37 | 1 in 359 |
| Arkansas | #97 | 47 | 1 in 416 |
| New Jersey | #103 | 88 | 1 in 699 |
| Pennsylvania | #108 | 157 | 1 in 707 |
| Rhode Island | #108 | 9 | 1 in 967 |
| Florida | #116 | 98 | 1 in 553 |
| New Hampshire | #121 | 8 | 1 in 764 |
| Maryland | #122 | 47 | 1 in 674 |
| Kentucky | #125 | 46 | 1 in 742 |
| Connecticut | #127 | 24 | 1 in 1,082 |
| Delaware | #131 | 6 | 1 in 826 |
| Texas | #135 | 196 | 1 in 609 |
| Tennessee | #140 | 43 | 1 in 901 |
| Alabama | #149 | 47 | 1 in 774 |
| Maine | #151 | 10 | 1 in 1,070 |
| Massachusetts | #152 | 31 | 1 in 1,798 |
| New York | #155 | 166 | 1 in 1,053 |
| Hawaii | #157 | 11 | 1 in 688 |
| Mississippi | #159 | 37 | 1 in 725 |
| Georgia | #167 | 49 | 1 in 957 |
| West Virginia | #168 | 15 | 1 in 1,179 |
| North Carolina | #178 | 45 | 1 in 1,143 |
| South Carolina | #194 | 24 | 1 in 1,134 |
| Virginia | #200 | 31 | 1 in 1,394 |
| Louisiana | #247 | 25 | 1 in 1,617 |
| District of Columbia | #248 | 7 | 1 in 2,067 |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
Ranks are within each state; “1 in N” is out of the boys 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 Jim
- 1,305 spots since 2024 (#4,433 → #3,128)
- 203 spots since 2020 (#2,925 → #3,128)
- 319 spots since 2015 (#2,809 → #3,128)
- Biggest jump: 42 spots in 1957 (#148 → #106)
- Biggest drop: 123 spots in 1997 (#874 → #997)
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 1882 at #45 (396 births)
- Births halved by 1989, 107 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: 51 yrs · run 1880–1907
- Top 1,000: 118 yrs · run 1880–1997
- Highest: 1 in 285 boys born in 1886 were named Jim (0.35%)
- Latest: 1 in 44,949 boys born in 2025 (0.00%)
- Its best rank, #45 in 1882, was only 1 in 287 (0.35%) — a smaller share of a much bigger birth year
- 23.3% of all boys named Jim (35,632) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 3,520 | #45 (1882) | #51 |
| 1890s | 2,841 | #62 (1890) | #70 |
| 1900s | 2,718 | #68 (1900) | #89 |
| 1910s | 5,764 | #100 (1910) | #154 |
| 1920s | 10,566 | #132 (1929) | #152 |
| 1930s | 20,823 | #75 (1939) | #95 |
| 1940s | 35,632 | #68 (1944) | #79 |
| 1950s | 26,215 | #70 (1959) | #140 |
| 1960s | 33,201 | #75 (1960) | #120 |
| 1970s | 6,021 | #204 (1970) | #331 |
| 1980s | 2,547 | #466 (1981) | #562 |
| 1990s | 1,607 | #685 (1990) | #882 |
| 2000s | 962 | #1,152 (2000) | #1,515 |
| 2010s | 506 | #2,100 (2010) | #2,558 |
| 2020s | 199 | #2,925 (2020) | #3,513 |
All figures count published births only (names given to at least 5 boys in a year). Registrations before 1937 are incomplete, so early shares and totals run low.
Jim in 1962
Top girls' names in 1962
Top boys' names in 1962
More about 1962
girls
1,966,603 girls got a published name in 1962; 1 in 196,660 of them was named Jim, which outranked 43.8% of the 7,584 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 15.9% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
- #4,011Yolando11
- #4,011Yolinda11
- #4,011Zanetta11
- #4,263Jim10
- #4,263Adora10
- #4,263Albertine10
- #4,263Alesha10
- #4,533Adaline9
- #4,533Adrea9
- #4,533Ailene9
Tied with 269 names at #4,263; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
2,068,772 boys got a published name in 1962; 1 in 439 of them was named Jim, which outranked 98.2% of the 4,631 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 28.8% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.