Adolph
18,745 US births on record
Adolph in the United States
Between 2010 and 2023 the name has been steady.
SOURCE·US Social Security Administration, national baby-name data·Public domain. SSA lists a name only if it was given to at least 5 babies of that sex that year.·REVIEWED JUL 2026
Adolph in New Zealand
Adolph never reached 10 births in a single year in New Zealand, so it does not appear in the DIA file. That is a reporting floor, not a zero — the name may still have been registered here, just never ten times in one year.
SOURCE·NZ Department of Internal Affairs, births by first name·CC BY 4.0. DIA lists a name only if it was given to at least 10 babies of that sex that year.·REVIEWED JUL 2026
Decade by decade in the US
| Year | Rank | Births |
|---|---|---|
| 1880 | #145 | 93 |
| 1890 | #138 | 102 |
| 1900 | #180 | 117 |
| 1910 | #210 | 122 |
| 1920 | #241 | 522 |
| 1930 | #320 | 297 |
| 1940 | #436 | 176 |
| 1950 | #571 | 141 |
| 1960 | #651 | 143 |
| 1970 | #926 | 74 |
| 1980 | #1,547 | 39 |
| 1990 | #2,488 | 27 |
| 2000 | #4,785 | 15 |
| 2010 | #9,693 | 7 |
| 2020 | #10,605 | 6 |
Where in the United States
The states that registered Adolph most often since 1880. These are lifetime totals, so they track state population as much as local taste — a name common in Wyoming will never out-count California.
| State | Births |
|---|---|
| Texas | 1,901 |
| New York | 1,493 |
| Illinois | 1,170 |
| Pennsylvania | 1,022 |
| California | 956 |
| New Jersey | 566 |
| Louisiana | 561 |
| Wisconsin | 522 |
| Michigan | 466 |
| Minnesota | 376 |
How these figures are worked out
- Counts come straight from the registrars: the US Social Security Administration (1880–2025) and the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (1900–2025). Nothing is scraped from another names site.
- Ranks are computed against every name in that year's file, not just the ones this site publishes pages for — otherwise a rank would flatter every name we happen to list.
- The curve is drawn on births per 100,000 of that sex, not raw counts. Raw counts across eras are misleading: far more births were registered in 1957 than in 1890, so a flat count is a falling share.
- Each country hides small numbers — the US below 5 births a year, New Zealand below 10. A gap in a line is "below the floor", never "nobody".
SOURCE·US SSA (1880–2025) + NZ DIA (1900–2025) birth registrations·ranks and shares computed from the source files, see method·REVIEWED JUL 2026