View Message

It's definitely usable for a human. I'm not a huge fan of it, but its "cool". Rexford is not better because although it is a real last name, it follows a trend I am not fond of (using short names and throwing -ford, -ley and -ton at the end).

I went through a massive Rex phase years ago! I thought it was the best. It's great because it's got the most fun gravitas to it. At least, I think it's fun. Maybe it could be seen as kind of hoity-toity, but for me it's cartoonish and bright, not fancy at all. It has Hanna Barbera energy; dorky nostalgia. Even though I don't know of an actual cartoon character called Rex, it has that same snappy, flimsy-fun aura.

No. I don’t think it’s a good name for a child and it’s too generic for a dog. Hmm Maybe a hamster.

Aw, I love Rex! It's definitely usable for a human. It has more panache than Max.

Of course it’s usable! I think it’s quite cute and I like how simple it is and ‘king’ is easily one of the coolest meanings for a name. I actually dislike it for pets just because it’s too predictable. I don’t really like Rexford, it’s seems fake somehow.

No

This message was edited 1/26/2024, 2:13 PM

I know it worked for Harrison, Reed, Ryan and probably plenty of others, but to me it's all dog, and a very cliche dog name at that. It's just comical on a human. I don't think Rexford makes it any better.

I mean, I think anything's "usable," but it's probably better suited for dogs or plastic dinosaur toys.