View Message

I don't like it either.

I've never cared for it, I think it sounds harsh and I find it kinda weird on a girl. Not a particular fan of it on a boy either.
I have never been super into gemstone names, and I think Ruby and Opal are the only ones I can tolerate.

What big deal? I've never seen someone sing its praises here, and it's currently used very rarely.

---

People use it because it's a gemstone and color. Would anyone use Violet just because it sounds nice, if it weren't a word? I doubt it. But back when Garnet was more popular, other Gar* and *et/ett/ette/etta/eta/ettie names were also more fashionable than now (although *et/ett and unisex nature names are not unpopular now, and it looks like Gardenia charted in Brazil a bit). Things like Garland and Nettie (and even Margaret, relatively) sound old now.

---

Potentially people who like wordy/nature names and *et/ett/ette names and funky old names would still like it.

---

I don't mind it, think it would be interesting to see it used for a baby, but it's not a personal favorite.

This message was edited 3/25/2024, 4:39 PM

I want to like it given that it's my birthstone, but it just doesn't really work as a name, IMO.

I'm not sure what you mean; I haven't noticed a sudden Garnet craze anywhere.

---

I loved Garnet from my teenage years, because I read it in a book and then it was a character in my favourite video game. Plus, it's a lovely gemstone that has lovely symbolism. But nobody else ever really liked it.

Garnet, to me, is a cool vintage name. But I know what you mean. I don't see the appeal of Sophia. Just don't get it. Good thing we all like different names or we'd all be named the same.

It doesn’t sound particularly feminine to me. It’s an ok name for a horse though.

I think it falls into two trends: the noun(gemstone) trend and the surname trend. Garnett was the surname of a well-known basketball player so I can see why it may be in people’s minds.

There's no big deal...?

---

It sounds too much like a surname for my liking.

I like it because its reminiscent of something pretty and valuable but it's not frilly like many other female names. It sounds more like a boy name, and that is attractive to some people. Because it is not "pretty", it sounds strong.

I think a lot of its appeal is in its art deco, Edwardian, pre-WWI air. Like Opal and Pearl it has a decorative image, but it's modest, not a garish color, not trying to sound rich or rare. (garnets not very valuable or expensive like rubies and sapphires and emeralds are) And the sound of it is actually pretty rough and clunky, like Opal and Pearl, and like Gladys and Margaret. The vibe I get, is a name that sounded cool in a world where appearances and wealth don't stand in for real value, and beauty is what you make it.

---

Because it's ugly sounding but an appealing image, it puts me in mind of a character who is very average, superficially boring, with quirks that don't seem cool - but, then when I get to know them, through their story, I become a huge admirer.

---

I happen to like Garnet and Gladys, but the sound of Opal and Pearl seems too ugly to me personally. It just depends on your personal taste, I guess. Maybe I just like the sound of G a lot more than I like P.

---

Anyway, that's how I'd describe what I think is the appeal of Garnet as a vintage name or character name. I can't say I'm sure it would make a great modern name for a baby today. People are too materialistic and image-obsessed, and it seems to me more like Ruby-for-hipsters or something like that. Well, it's easy to be nostalgic. Who knows. I would not mind seeing a child named Garnet.

This message was edited 3/25/2024, 7:42 PM

Don't like it either

I think it is pretty. Not my first choice in a gemstone name but I do like it. Emerald I like more