Lacy
#2,583 for girls in 2025, 67 births · Last seen for boys in 2021 at #9,714
Given to girls 75.7% of the time
- Peak · girls
- 1983 · 972 births
- Debut · girls
- 6 births
- In top 100 · girls
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 20,211since 1880
Lacy over time
Rank within each sex, plotted together. 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 | #2,583 | 67 | — | |
| 2024 | #3,013 | 54 | — | |
| 2023 | #2,823 | 60 | — | |
| 2022 | #2,554 | 69 | — | |
| 2021 | #2,131 | 88 | #9,714 | 7 |
| 2020 | #2,500 | 69 | — | |
| 2019 | #2,508 | 70 | — | |
| 2018 | #1,869 | 108 | #9,670 | 7 |
| 2017 | #1,876 | 108 | — | |
| 2016 | #1,743 | 119 | — | |
| 2015 | #1,437 | 160 | #12,086 | 5 |
| 2014 | #1,479 | 151 | #9,642 | 7 |
| 2013 | #1,440 | 156 | #12,136 | 5 |
| 2012 | #1,539 | 143 | — | |
| 2011 | #1,540 | 142 | #12,287 | 5 |
| 2010 | #1,367 | 170 | #7,087 | 11 |
| 2009 | #1,246 | 198 | #6,802 | 12 |
| 2008 | #1,231 | 205 | #7,698 | 10 |
| 2007 | #1,003 | 263 | #8,173 | 9 |
| 2006 | #1,042 | 246 | #7,427 | 10 |
| 2005 | #940 | 263 | — | |
| 2004 | #890 | 273 | #8,927 | 7 |
| 2003 | #825 | 297 | #4,815 | 16 |
| 2002 | #1,121 | 186 | — | |
| 2001 | #1,014 | 211 | #9,243 | 6 |
| 2000 | #1,021 | 206 | #5,297 | 13 |
| 1999 | #914 | 231 | #6,530 | 9 |
| 1998 | #911 | 231 | #7,560 | 7 |
| 1997 | #762 | 277 | #4,246 | 15 |
| 1996 | #767 | 276 | #4,613 | 13 |
| 1995 | #651 | 330 | #3,693 | 17 |
| 1994 | #556 | 432 | #3,751 | 17 |
| 1993 | #476 | 534 | #2,943 | 23 |
| 1992 | #424 | 594 | #2,909 | 23 |
| 1991 | #371 | 695 | #2,683 | 25 |
| 1990 | #354 | 753 | #2,255 | 31 |
| 1989 | #349 | 736 | #1,993 | 36 |
| 1988 | #329 | 749 | #2,197 | 28 |
| 1987 | #290 | 838 | #2,115 | 28 |
| 1986 | #291 | 853 | #2,290 | 24 |
| 1985 | #269 | 934 | #1,866 | 31 |
| 1984 | #260 | 940 | #1,933 | 28 |
| 1983 | #242 | 972 | #1,787 | 31 |
| 1982 | #253 | 988 | #1,999 | 27 |
| 1981 | #290 | 833 | #1,996 | 27 |
| 1980 | #406 | 562 | #1,695 | 34 |
| 1979 | #475 | 427 | #1,435 | 42 |
| 1978 | #441 | 453 | #1,794 | 29 |
| 1977 | #891 | 159 | #1,571 | 35 |
| 1976 | #877 | 152 | #1,346 | 43 |
| 1975 | #707 | 210 | #1,593 | 32 |
| 1974 | #1,486 | 66 | #1,229 | 46 |
| 1973 | #1,450 | 66 | #1,329 | 39 |
| 1972 | #1,414 | 69 | #1,196 | 47 |
| 1971 | #2,035 | 41 | #1,330 | 40 |
| 1970 | #1,407 | 74 | #1,222 | 46 |
| 1969 | #1,572 | 57 | #1,110 | 49 |
| 1968 | #1,776 | 44 | #875 | 68 |
| 1967 | #2,212 | 29 | #1,043 | 49 |
| 1966 | #2,147 | 30 | #1,073 | 47 |
| 1965 | #1,914 | 36 | #942 | 61 |
| 1964 | #2,412 | 26 | #1,016 | 55 |
| 1963 | #2,094 | 32 | #971 | 60 |
| 1962 | #1,627 | 48 | #1,091 | 49 |
| 1961 | #2,474 | 24 | #1,013 | 59 |
| 1960 | #2,820 | 19 | #973 | 61 |
| 1959 | #2,678 | 19 | #875 | 76 |
| 1958 | #2,581 | 20 | #950 | 64 |
| 1957 | #2,347 | 23 | #861 | 76 |
| 1956 | #2,929 | 16 | #840 | 79 |
| 1955 | #2,635 | 18 | #874 | 71 |
| 1954 | #2,592 | 18 | #902 | 67 |
| 1953 | #2,363 | 20 | #819 | 77 |
| 1952 | #3,796 | 9 | #717 | 96 |
| 1951 | #2,474 | 17 | #813 | 75 |
| 1950 | #2,781 | 14 | #718 | 91 |
| 1949 | #2,999 | 12 | #782 | 77 |
| 1948 | #2,491 | 16 | #713 | 88 |
| 1947 | #2,769 | 14 | #696 | 99 |
| 1946 | #3,034 | 11 | #685 | 89 |
| 1945 | #2,060 | 17 | #749 | 67 |
| 1944 | #1,609 | 26 | #658 | 89 |
| 1943 | #2,079 | 18 | #650 | 96 |
| 1942 | #1,804 | 22 | #652 | 96 |
| 1941 | #2,096 | 16 | #636 | 92 |
| 1940 | #2,572 | 11 | #673 | 81 |
| 1939 | #2,038 | 16 | #636 | 86 |
| 1938 | #1,873 | 18 | #752 | 66 |
| 1937 | #1,735 | 20 | #575 | 100 |
| 1936 | #2,032 | 15 | #625 | 87 |
| 1935 | #1,917 | 17 | #581 | 100 |
| 1934 | #2,567 | 11 | #615 | 93 |
| 1933 | #1,658 | 21 | #703 | 73 |
| 1932 | #1,634 | 22 | #581 | 104 |
| 1931 | #1,941 | 17 | #667 | 80 |
| 1930 | #2,552 | 12 | #605 | 102 |
| 1929 | #2,011 | 17 | #610 | 98 |
| 1928 | #2,194 | 16 | #621 | 97 |
| 1927 | #1,935 | 20 | #573 | 116 |
| 1926 | #2,569 | 13 | #608 | 106 |
| 1925 | #1,376 | 34 | #562 | 121 |
| 1924 | #1,926 | 21 | #568 | 125 |
| 1923 | #1,428 | 32 | #640 | 100 |
| 1922 | #1,682 | 25 | #594 | 118 |
| 1921 | #1,514 | 30 | #589 | 116 |
| 1920 | #1,470 | 30 | #609 | 107 |
| 1919 | #1,445 | 29 | #638 | 91 |
| 1918 | #1,451 | 29 | #579 | 110 |
| 1917 | #1,402 | 28 | #561 | 110 |
| 1916 | #1,332 | 30 | #542 | 111 |
| 1915 | #1,475 | 24 | #609 | 89 |
| 1914 | #1,344 | 22 | #562 | 79 |
| 1913 | #1,020 | 28 | #560 | 60 |
| 1912 | #1,117 | 22 | #491 | 65 |
| 1911 | #1,300 | 13 | #533 | 31 |
| 1910 | #845 | 26 | #480 | 33 |
| 1909 | #935 | 19 | #545 | 23 |
| 1908 | #1,084 | 14 | #438 | 30 |
| 1907 | #945 | 16 | #417 | 30 |
| 1906 | #965 | 15 | #431 | 26 |
| 1905 | #968 | 15 | #549 | 18 |
| 1904 | #965 | 14 | #452 | 22 |
| 1903 | #1,204 | 9 | #411 | 23 |
| 1902 | #1,024 | 12 | #440 | 22 |
| 1901 | #699 | 21 | #487 | 16 |
| 1900 | #941 | 16 | #385 | 33 |
| 1899 | #935 | 12 | #502 | 15 |
| 1898 | #840 | 16 | #804 | 8 |
| 1897 | #1,263 | 7 | #438 | 19 |
| 1896 | #903 | 13 | #500 | 17 |
| 1895 | #770 | 17 | #609 | 12 |
| 1894 | #812 | 14 | #387 | 23 |
| 1893 | #767 | 15 | #650 | 10 |
| 1892 | #861 | 12 | #458 | 18 |
| 1891 | #893 | 10 | #476 | 14 |
| 1890 | #825 | 11 | #434 | 17 |
| 1889 | #1,279 | 5 | #628 | 10 |
| 1888 | #1,136 | 6 | #554 | 13 |
| 1887 | #1,036 | 6 | #679 | 8 |
| 1886 | #993 | 6 | #605 | 10 |
| 1885 | #842 | 7 | #547 | 12 |
| 1884 | — | #764 | 7 | |
| 1883 | — | #720 | 7 | |
| 1882 | — | #576 | 11 | |
| 1881 | — | #563 | 10 | |
| 1880 | #738 | 6 | #640 | 9 |
In the first year the SSA published name data, Lacy was already there! It came in at #738, and was given to 6 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1881–1884, when fewer than 5 girls a year got the name.
See more about Lacy
- 430 spots since 2024 (#3,013 → #2,583)
- 83 spots since 2020 (#2,500 → #2,583)
- 1,146 spots since 2015 (#1,437 → #2,583)
- Biggest jump: 779 spots in 1975 (#1,486 → #707)
- Biggest drop: 455 spots in 1911 (#845 → #1,300)
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 1983 at #242 (972 births)
- Births halved by 1994, 11 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 48 yrs · run 1975–1999
- Highest: 1 in 1,714 girls born in 1982 were named Lacy (0.06%)
- Latest: 1 in 23,989 girls born in 2025 (0.00%)
- Its best rank, #242 in 1983, was only 1 in 1,719 (0.06%) — a smaller share of a much bigger birth year
- 41.6% of all girls named Lacy (8,405) were born in this decade
- Mostly boys until 1968, mostly girls since
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 36 | #738 (1880) | #1,004 |
| 1890s | 127 | #767 (1893) | #887 |
| 1900s | 151 | #699 (1901) | #973 |
| 1910s | 251 | #845 (1910) | #1,273 |
| 1920s | 238 | #1,376 (1925) | #1,811 |
| 1930s | 169 | #1,634 (1932) | #1,995 |
| 1940s | 163 | #1,609 (1944) | #2,351 |
| 1950s | 174 | #2,347 (1957) | #2,718 |
| 1960s | 345 | #1,572 (1969) | #2,105 |
| 1970s | 1,717 | #441 (1978) | #1,118 |
| 1980s | 8,405 | #242 (1983) | #298 |
| 1990s | 4,353 | #354 (1990) | #619 |
| 2000s | 2,348 | #825 (2003) | #1,033 |
| 2010s | 1,327 | #1,367 (2010) | #1,680 |
| 2020s | 407 | #2,131 (2021) | #2,601 |
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.
Lacy in 1932
Top girls' names in 1932
Top boys' names in 1932
More about 1932
girls
1,067,148 girls got a published name in 1932; 1 in 48,507 of them was named Lacy, which outranked 67.9% of the 5,098 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 23.0% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
- #1,597Thora23
- #1,597Vermell23
- #1,597Willo23
- #1,634Lacy22
- #1,634Baby22
- #1,634Chris22
- #1,634Chrystal22
- #1,685Abby21
- #1,685Alfred21
- #1,685Allison21
Tied with 50 names at #1,634; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
1,044,157 boys got a published name in 1932; 1 in 10,040 of them was named Lacy, which outranked 86.4% of the 4,284 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 33.6% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).