Add a Comment680 comments
Average Guess (113 Votes)
Peak: 5ft 10.4in (178.8cm)
Current: 5ft 9.41in (176.3cm)
Peak: 5ft 10.4in (178.8cm)
Current: 5ft 9.41in (176.3cm)
guyfrommars said on 9/Dec/11
John was definately shorter than Paul with at least half an inch. If Paul was 5'10.5" John was rather 5'10" (I'd say 5'9.5") and not the 5'10.5" listed here.
John was definately shorter than Paul with at least half an inch. If Paul was 5'10.5" John was rather 5'10" (I'd say 5'9.5") and not the 5'10.5" listed here.
jessica eaton said on 5/Dec/11
i am a huge fan of the beatles and i even own a hard days night and the movie help
my coworkers dont like the beatles at all
i am a huge fan of the beatles and i even own a hard days night and the movie help
my coworkers dont like the beatles at all
joker said on 3/Dec/11
@mcfan
Agree that the fact Tom Jones was taller than them really knocked their heights down a little. They just look taller because they were fit and therefore, more lanky than the people today who are more overweight. But they are not tall people by any means.
@mcfan
Agree that the fact Tom Jones was taller than them really knocked their heights down a little. They just look taller because they were fit and therefore, more lanky than the people today who are more overweight. But they are not tall people by any means.
AD said on 25/Nov/11
Yeah mcfan I agree .. and sorry, just to be clear I was saying that 5'11" for John, Paul and George was WITH their Beatle boots on, which means barefoot the 3 of them would have been around 5'9.5" (the height that Macca was at 43). Your Mother Should Know clip shows them at the same height as you say, and also the pic I posted below when they're stood together on a doorstep.
Yeah mcfan I agree .. and sorry, just to be clear I was saying that 5'11" for John, Paul and George was WITH their Beatle boots on, which means barefoot the 3 of them would have been around 5'9.5" (the height that Macca was at 43). Your Mother Should Know clip shows them at the same height as you say, and also the pic I posted below when they're stood together on a doorstep.
mcfan said on 24/Nov/11
Yeah, I highly doubt he shrunk by 43. Still, I think they were about 5'10 at the most. All you can say is that John and Paul were the same height as per Paul's quote and "Your Mother Should Know" video with the same shoes/outfits. If Tom Jones was truly 5'10.5, why was he taller than both John & Paul?
Yeah, I highly doubt he shrunk by 43. Still, I think they were about 5'10 at the most. All you can say is that John and Paul were the same height as per Paul's quote and "Your Mother Should Know" video with the same shoes/outfits. If Tom Jones was truly 5'10.5, why was he taller than both John & Paul?
AD said on 20/Nov/11
I really don't think he would have shrunk an inch and a half by age 43, I'm in my 40s now and exactly the same height as in my 20s. John, Paul and George would have all 3 been 5'11" with their Beatle boots on so I guess that's what their management would have told them to say as their height, Ringo was listed as 5'8" which would have been more like 5'6.5" barefoot. If Paul was 5'9.5" at 43 then I seriously doubt he was ever any more than that ...177cm at the most.
I really don't think he would have shrunk an inch and a half by age 43, I'm in my 40s now and exactly the same height as in my 20s. John, Paul and George would have all 3 been 5'11" with their Beatle boots on so I guess that's what their management would have told them to say as their height, Ringo was listed as 5'8" which would have been more like 5'6.5" barefoot. If Paul was 5'9.5" at 43 then I seriously doubt he was ever any more than that ...177cm at the most.
Marc said on 19/Nov/11
i herd on the radio hes 5ft 11 there is also footage of him saying he is 5ft11 at the age of 22 but you know with age you can shrink
i herd on the radio hes 5ft 11 there is also footage of him saying he is 5ft11 at the age of 22 but you know with age you can shrink
AD said on 17/Nov/11
Sorry Lyra, I've met Paul, stood next to him and had a photo taken on a flat surface... he was most definately 5'9.5" at that time when he was 43. I'm being incredibly honest about that, you can read my account on it if you scroll down... I must add though he was an incredibly nice person. Paul, George and John were all around the same height as you can see from this picture, maybe within a cm of each other but all 3 around 5'9.5" or a little over. The reason that Paul appeared taller a lot of the time is because he has very broad and high shoulders
Click Here
Just for comparism, this is Paul with 6'0" Tom Hanks
Click Here
I'd say 5'9" flat nowadays is about right.
Sorry Lyra, I've met Paul, stood next to him and had a photo taken on a flat surface... he was most definately 5'9.5" at that time when he was 43. I'm being incredibly honest about that, you can read my account on it if you scroll down... I must add though he was an incredibly nice person. Paul, George and John were all around the same height as you can see from this picture, maybe within a cm of each other but all 3 around 5'9.5" or a little over. The reason that Paul appeared taller a lot of the time is because he has very broad and high shoulders
Click Here
Just for comparism, this is Paul with 6'0" Tom Hanks
Click Here
I'd say 5'9" flat nowadays is about right.
Lyra said on 16/Nov/11
That can't be right! He seems much taller then John and John is 5'11 !!! i think this is wrong.
That can't be right! He seems much taller then John and John is 5'11 !!! i think this is wrong.
178 said on 5/Nov/11
Sir Paul McCartney is 5' 9" flat now. He still looked 5' 9.5" about 15 years ago. In fact the photo of him with Prince Charles that I previously uploaded was when Charles was 5' 9.5"... but he's also 5' 9" flat now.
Sir Paul McCartney is 5' 9" flat now. He still looked 5' 9.5" about 15 years ago. In fact the photo of him with Prince Charles that I previously uploaded was when Charles was 5' 9.5"... but he's also 5' 9" flat now.
Christian said on 26/Oct/11
-Rob, Do you remeber Glenns photo with Paul? Paul looked 5´8-5'9'', didn´t he?
Editor Rob
-Rob, Do you remeber Glenns photo with Paul? Paul looked 5´8-5'9'', didn´t he?
Editor Rob a lot of those shots were very close, although mccartney can look 5ft 9 range at times.
Christian said on 13/Oct/11
I belive John and Paul were 5'10ish, George a tad shorter and Ringo about 5'6''.
I belive John and Paul were 5'10ish, George a tad shorter and Ringo about 5'6''.
AD said on 11/Oct/11
Sorry to disagree there wayne77 ..but although I agree they were all the same height, that height was more 5'9.5" ...Paul was most definately that height when I met him when he was 43 so I seriously doubt he was ever any taller barefoot. 5'11" was their height with their cuban heeled boots that they wore as almost a uniform in the early years.
Sorry to disagree there wayne77 ..but although I agree they were all the same height, that height was more 5'9.5" ...Paul was most definately that height when I met him when he was 43 so I seriously doubt he was ever any taller barefoot. 5'11" was their height with their cuban heeled boots that they wore as almost a uniform in the early years.
wayne77 said on 6/Oct/11
paul ,john and george were all 5'11.what makes this difficult to understand,is that john had the worst posture,of all of the beatles.but when he stood upright he,and paul and george,were all 5'11.
check out 'Your Mother Should Know" from MMT video,all wearing the same shoes.You could almost put a table on there heads,and it would be even.
paul ,john and george were all 5'11.what makes this difficult to understand,is that john had the worst posture,of all of the beatles.but when he stood upright he,and paul and george,were all 5'11.
check out 'Your Mother Should Know" from MMT video,all wearing the same shoes.You could almost put a table on there heads,and it would be even.
mcfan said on 13/Sep/11
If he was ever 5'11, I'm 1-inch taller than I claim to be.
If he was ever 5'11, I'm 1-inch taller than I claim to be.
Jennifer said on 6/Sep/11
I am 5'8" and have a pic with Macca when he was 46, 47, I was in flats, he was in loafers (it was the 80s)and he is at least 2 inches taller than me. I think he is 5'11".
I am 5'8" and have a pic with Macca when he was 46, 47, I was in flats, he was in loafers (it was the 80s)and he is at least 2 inches taller than me. I think he is 5'11".
castillo said on 16/Aug/11
5'9"+ sounds fair enough to me. he never claimed to be more than 5'10 1/2" in the beatles and that was nearly 50 years ago. an inch shrinkage at nearly 70 would be standard and i can't blame him for adding an inch or so to his shoes when he's got tall guitarists in his band. macca has never claimed to be 6' or whatever like lots of shorty celebs who are debated on this site. maybe that's the confidence being one of the greatest songwriters ever and the object of millions of women's desires gives you.
5'9"+ sounds fair enough to me. he never claimed to be more than 5'10 1/2" in the beatles and that was nearly 50 years ago. an inch shrinkage at nearly 70 would be standard and i can't blame him for adding an inch or so to his shoes when he's got tall guitarists in his band. macca has never claimed to be 6' or whatever like lots of shorty celebs who are debated on this site. maybe that's the confidence being one of the greatest songwriters ever and the object of millions of women's desires gives you.
178 said on 3/Aug/11
AD says on 31/Jul/11
@178 - unfortunately the photo hasn't survived the 25 years since it was taken, lots of moving house and travels has lost me lots of possessions! My height is 178cm barefoot, but at the time of the photo I was measured on my 16th birthday at 175cm. I met Paul a week later, I was wearing shoes with standard 2-2.5cm heel, Paul was wearing very flat 'deck' pumps which couldn't have been more than 1cm. I remember the photo very vividly cause the first thing I noticed is that the top of our heads were exactly level. As I was 175cm at the time but had 1-2cm more on footwear, this would have made Macca 176/177cm. I wish I still had the photo to show, but this is the most honest recollection I have.
That's great, sounds very descriptive.
Cheers.
AD says on 31/Jul/11
@178 - unfortunately the photo hasn't survived the 25 years since it was taken, lots of moving house and travels has lost me lots of possessions! My height is 178cm barefoot, but at the time of the photo I was measured on my 16th birthday at 175cm. I met Paul a week later, I was wearing shoes with standard 2-2.5cm heel, Paul was wearing very flat 'deck' pumps which couldn't have been more than 1cm. I remember the photo very vividly cause the first thing I noticed is that the top of our heads were exactly level. As I was 175cm at the time but had 1-2cm more on footwear, this would have made Macca 176/177cm. I wish I still had the photo to show, but this is the most honest recollection I have.
That's great, sounds very descriptive.
Cheers.
Frank45 said on 1/Aug/11
Saw Paul McCartney at Comerica Park in Detroit last week, second row, center state, 30 feet away. Paul was wearing his Cuban heels and is no taller than 5'9' with his heels. Fantastic show BTW.
Saw Paul McCartney at Comerica Park in Detroit last week, second row, center state, 30 feet away. Paul was wearing his Cuban heels and is no taller than 5'9' with his heels. Fantastic show BTW.
AD said on 31/Jul/11
@178 - unfortunately the photo hasn't survived the 25 years since it was taken, lots of moving house and travels has lost me lots of possessions! My height is 178cm barefoot, but at the time of the photo I was measured on my 16th birthday at 175cm. I met Paul a week later, I was wearing shoes with standard 2-2.5cm heel, Paul was wearing very flat 'deck' pumps which couldn't have been more than 1cm. I remember the photo very vividly cause the first thing I noticed is that the top of our heads were exactly level. As I was 175cm at the time but had 1-2cm more on footwear, this would have made Macca 176/177cm. I wish I still had the photo to show, but this is the most honest recollection I have.
@178 - unfortunately the photo hasn't survived the 25 years since it was taken, lots of moving house and travels has lost me lots of possessions! My height is 178cm barefoot, but at the time of the photo I was measured on my 16th birthday at 175cm. I met Paul a week later, I was wearing shoes with standard 2-2.5cm heel, Paul was wearing very flat 'deck' pumps which couldn't have been more than 1cm. I remember the photo very vividly cause the first thing I noticed is that the top of our heads were exactly level. As I was 175cm at the time but had 1-2cm more on footwear, this would have made Macca 176/177cm. I wish I still had the photo to show, but this is the most honest recollection I have.
178 said on 29/Jul/11
AD says on 28/Jul/11
I can very honestly say that when I met him and had a photo taken with him shoulder to shoulder when he was 43 he was 176/177 cm ... so I very much doubt he was ever taller than 177cm. Probably 175/176cm now.
I believe you. But so other people do, I don't suppose you could upload the photo and state your own height as well?
Regards.
AD says on 28/Jul/11
I can very honestly say that when I met him and had a photo taken with him shoulder to shoulder when he was 43 he was 176/177 cm ... so I very much doubt he was ever taller than 177cm. Probably 175/176cm now.
I believe you. But so other people do, I don't suppose you could upload the photo and state your own height as well?
Regards.
AD said on 28/Jul/11
I can very honestly say that when I met him and had a photo taken with him shoulder to shoulder when he was 43 he was 176/177 cm ... so I very much doubt he was ever taller than 177cm. Probably 175/176cm now.
I can very honestly say that when I met him and had a photo taken with him shoulder to shoulder when he was 43 he was 176/177 cm ... so I very much doubt he was ever taller than 177cm. Probably 175/176cm now.
John Tak said on 22/Jul/11
He my height kool. Paul i can be your drummer when you need someone in my part of Florida ........John Tak.......www.ucandoit.info
He my height kool. Paul i can be your drummer when you need someone in my part of Florida ........John Tak.......www.ucandoit.info
mike said on 15/Jul/11
@Ace
Maybe his younger brother is posing as him? I think his brother is a couple inches taller than he is.
@Ace
Maybe his younger brother is posing as him? I think his brother is a couple inches taller than he is.
Ace said on 13/Jul/11
this would be a good place to discuss the most absurd part of the "paul is dead" theory: that the 2nd paul was a different height than the original paul. I've seen claims that the "2nd" Paul was as much as 6'1! C'mon! Like no one would notice that if it were true!?!? Thoughts?
this would be a good place to discuss the most absurd part of the "paul is dead" theory: that the 2nd paul was a different height than the original paul. I've seen claims that the "2nd" Paul was as much as 6'1! C'mon! Like no one would notice that if it were true!?!? Thoughts?
mcfan said on 4/Jun/11
David Lynch looks 2 inches taller than Paul, not an inch.
David Lynch looks 2 inches taller than Paul, not an inch.
mike said on 22/May/11
That picture with prince charles took the mystery out of it. He's the same height as 5.9 prince charles with similar footwear.
That picture with prince charles took the mystery out of it. He's the same height as 5.9 prince charles with similar footwear.
Martyr said on 22/May/11
...and Bowie wears elevator shoes, remember him next to David Lynch (a legit 5'11), they looked nearly the same height. Next to Lynch, Paul himself looks an inch shorter nowadays. He's probably closer to 5'9 and a half. But I really think he was an inch taller in his younger beatles days.
...and Bowie wears elevator shoes, remember him next to David Lynch (a legit 5'11), they looked nearly the same height. Next to Lynch, Paul himself looks an inch shorter nowadays. He's probably closer to 5'9 and a half. But I really think he was an inch taller in his younger beatles days.
mcfan said on 17/May/11
David Bowie was not quite 5'9.5, not 5'10.
David Bowie was not quite 5'9.5, not 5'10.
Sean said on 17/May/11
David Bowie is 5'10" just for the record
David Bowie is 5'10" just for the record
mike said on 12/May/11
@J
Very good links there. From those pics, he's 5'9" to 5'9"1/2
Looks like Dave Grohl had 4 inches on him though.
@J
Very good links there. From those pics, he's 5'9" to 5'9"1/2
Looks like Dave Grohl had 4 inches on him though.
Christian said on 11/May/11
I agree with 178 that Paul look closer to 5'9'' than 5'10''. What would you say Rob?
I agree with 178 that Paul look closer to 5'9'' than 5'10''. What would you say Rob?
J said on 11/May/11
No, as for the height of Paul McCartney, there is 5 ft 9.75 in when all photographs look well．
No, as for the height of Paul McCartney, there is 5 ft 9.75 in when all photographs look well．
178 said on 10/May/11
This should settle it!
With 5' 9" Prince Charles: Click Here
With 5' 9" Paul Rudd: Click Here
With (questionable 5' 9") Simon Pegg: Click Here
With 5' 9" David Bowie: Click Here
With 6' 0" Dave Grohl: Click Here
With 5' 6" Ringo Starr: Click Here
Sir Paul McCartney is 5' 9" (175 cm) in truth.
He was possibly 5' 10" during The Beatles era though and could appear as tall as 5' 11" in 2" 'Beatle Boots' or Cuban heels. He wears lifts or elevator shoes on some occasions nowadays, which make him appear between 5' 10" and 5' 11" but don't be fooled.
This should settle it!
With 5' 9" Prince Charles: Click Here
With 5' 9" Paul Rudd: Click Here
With (questionable 5' 9") Simon Pegg: Click Here
With 5' 9" David Bowie: Click Here
With 6' 0" Dave Grohl: Click Here
With 5' 6" Ringo Starr: Click Here
Sir Paul McCartney is 5' 9" (175 cm) in truth.
He was possibly 5' 10" during The Beatles era though and could appear as tall as 5' 11" in 2" 'Beatle Boots' or Cuban heels. He wears lifts or elevator shoes on some occasions nowadays, which make him appear between 5' 10" and 5' 11" but don't be fooled.
todd r. brassner said on 5/May/11
the fab four were average height for blokes born c. ww2, itried on the beatle suits at the1987 sotheby's 1st rock rock auction,amongst other stuff were the beatle suits like or did wear nov. 64 on ed sullivan show,i tried on a couple,now! i'm 58 even 135lb. in 87 and not one of the suites was much larger ,or not at all,ringo i would say 5.6,john &paul 5.8-5.9,george about the same.i spent a wonderful night w/ringo and his palsc.75,john many times in nyc,i would say just shy of 5.9. but in reality they stood very high,miles and across the universe,we all got by,with a little help from these friends,won't happen again! maybe after the next ice age if hendrix is in the mix.
the fab four were average height for blokes born c. ww2, itried on the beatle suits at the1987 sotheby's 1st rock rock auction,amongst other stuff were the beatle suits like or did wear nov. 64 on ed sullivan show,i tried on a couple,now! i'm 58 even 135lb. in 87 and not one of the suites was much larger ,or not at all,ringo i would say 5.6,john &paul 5.8-5.9,george about the same.i spent a wonderful night w/ringo and his palsc.75,john many times in nyc,i would say just shy of 5.9. but in reality they stood very high,miles and across the universe,we all got by,with a little help from these friends,won't happen again! maybe after the next ice age if hendrix is in the mix.
mcfan said on 28/Apr/11
George was slightly under John and Paul.
George was slightly under John and Paul.
guyfrommars said on 23/Apr/11
McCartney is 5'10". He and George were 6' in those 2" Cuban heels in 1962-1966. John is slightly under, 5'9.5". He had a tendency to wear boots with large heels, even after the classic Beatle days were over.
McCartney is 5'10". He and George were 6' in those 2" Cuban heels in 1962-1966. John is slightly under, 5'9.5". He had a tendency to wear boots with large heels, even after the classic Beatle days were over.
Roddodg said on 9/Apr/11
John was definietly much taller than 5-6. He and Paul were around 5-11, George 5-10 and Ringo 5-6.
John was definietly much taller than 5-6. He and Paul were around 5-11, George 5-10 and Ringo 5-6.
mcfan said on 7/Apr/11
avi, if that's only 2.5 inches between Paul and Barack then I need a new set of glasses.
avi, if that's only 2.5 inches between Paul and Barack then I need a new set of glasses.
avi said on 5/Apr/11
he was about 2.5 shorter than 6'1ish Obama. If Obama is missing 6'1 (like 6'0 1/2) then McCartney is 5'10 flat.He looks 5'10 though. there was a special at the white house where McCartney sang for Obama and an audience.
he was about 2.5 shorter than 6'1ish Obama. If Obama is missing 6'1 (like 6'0 1/2) then McCartney is 5'10 flat.He looks 5'10 though. there was a special at the white house where McCartney sang for Obama and an audience.
Fred said on 27/Mar/11
i think paul is 180cm because when he was near to michael jackson, he was a little bigger than mj that was 178cm.
i think paul is 180cm because when he was near to michael jackson, he was a little bigger than mj that was 178cm.
AD said on 15/Mar/11
I think remove 2cm exactly from the listed 'now' and 'peak' heights above .... and that would be spot on.
I think remove 2cm exactly from the listed 'now' and 'peak' heights above .... and that would be spot on.
mcfan said on 21/Feb/11
Optobob, yeah, he was probably even 3 inches taller than Paul in that SNL skit. However, there's a problem with Alec Baldwin. He also appears over an inch taller than Steve Martin who I don't think was ever over 5'11, but is listed here as 5'11.5. At other times stocky Alec Balwin only looks 5'11 and this is undoubtedly due to lifts.
Optobob, yeah, he was probably even 3 inches taller than Paul in that SNL skit. However, there's a problem with Alec Baldwin. He also appears over an inch taller than Steve Martin who I don't think was ever over 5'11, but is listed here as 5'11.5. At other times stocky Alec Balwin only looks 5'11 and this is undoubtedly due to lifts.
optobob said on 20/Feb/11
Just saw 5'11" Alec Baldwin in a photo with an at least 2" shorter McCartney on the Saturday Night Live retro show.
Just saw 5'11" Alec Baldwin in a photo with an at least 2" shorter McCartney on the Saturday Night Live retro show.
Christian said on 9/Feb/11
Hey Rob!
I think Sam is right. Paul look closer to 5'9½'' nowdays. Sometimes I think he can look only 5'9'' but I guess that could be angles.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Hey Rob!
I think Sam is right. Paul look closer to 5'9½'' nowdays. Sometimes I think he can look only 5'9'' but I guess that could be angles.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Sam said on 7/Feb/11
Rob, do you think 5'10" is really his current height? He has not been looking that tall
Editor Rob
Rob, do you think 5'10" is really his current height? He has not been looking that tall
Editor Rob he could be 1/2 inch less now
AD said on 14/Jan/11
The 5'10.5" that Paul mentions for both himself and John would only have been with shoes on ...5'11" with the cuban heeled Beatle boots. Peak height barefoot of 176/177cm ....nowadays 175cm.
The 5'10.5" that Paul mentions for both himself and John would only have been with shoes on ...5'11" with the cuban heeled Beatle boots. Peak height barefoot of 176/177cm ....nowadays 175cm.
me said on 11/Jan/11
That apple picture was altered. I saw the original and george and paul was the same height.
That apple picture was altered. I saw the original and george and paul was the same height.
177lad! said on 10/Jan/11
Just seen that Pegg is listed as '175 cm maximum, possibly 174 cm' by Rob (many posters agree on 5' 8" ish).
What does that say for Sir Paul?
My opinion is 175 cm nowadays and 5' 10" during The Beatles heyday... same as Bowie.
Just seen that Pegg is listed as '175 cm maximum, possibly 174 cm' by Rob (many posters agree on 5' 8" ish).
What does that say for Sir Paul?
My opinion is 175 cm nowadays and 5' 10" during The Beatles heyday... same as Bowie.
177lad! said on 10/Jan/11
Appeared to be exactly the same height as 5' 9" (175 cm) Simon Pegg at an awards event recently.
Appeared to be exactly the same height as 5' 9" (175 cm) Simon Pegg at an awards event recently.
me said on 5/Jan/11
@anon
The apple add was just a pose. None of them were exactly standing straight except for paul and ringo for artistic reasons. How boring will it be for everyone of them to be standing up straight in good posture on every shot they take?
@anon
The apple add was just a pose. None of them were exactly standing straight except for paul and ringo for artistic reasons. How boring will it be for everyone of them to be standing up straight in good posture on every shot they take?
me said on 4/Jan/11
All 3 of them are about the same height separate by .5 inch.
All 3 of them are about the same height separate by .5 inch.
anon said on 4/Jan/11
John Paul and George were the same height, 5'11". Everyone has known this since 1963. But given Paul's quote that he's 5'10.5" (imagine a celebrity actually bumping DOWN his height!), there you go. Poor George looks much shorter than Paul in the new iTunes advertisements that are EVERYWHERE now, but that's a Photoshop that was done to align them properly (if you look at the original picture he's the same height as Paul).
John Paul and George were the same height, 5'11". Everyone has known this since 1963. But given Paul's quote that he's 5'10.5" (imagine a celebrity actually bumping DOWN his height!), there you go. Poor George looks much shorter than Paul in the new iTunes advertisements that are EVERYWHERE now, but that's a Photoshop that was done to align them properly (if you look at the original picture he's the same height as Paul).
Sam said on 3/Jan/11
At the Kennedy Center Honors, he looked about 4" under 6'1" Barack and a heeled 5'10" Michelle Obama, a bit(maybe an inch) taller than a heeled 5'6" Oprah Winfrey and maybe 2.5-3" inches taller than Merle Haggard, who appears under-average but Idk his true height. About consistent with 5'9" and change these days.
At the Kennedy Center Honors, he looked about 4" under 6'1" Barack and a heeled 5'10" Michelle Obama, a bit(maybe an inch) taller than a heeled 5'6" Oprah Winfrey and maybe 2.5-3" inches taller than Merle Haggard, who appears under-average but Idk his true height. About consistent with 5'9" and change these days.
me said on 3/Jan/11
@jtm
Maybe depp has shorter legs. But it's pretty weird that depp is as tall as him because he's supposed to be 5.10. Depp is around 5.8.
@jtm
Maybe depp has shorter legs. But it's pretty weird that depp is as tall as him because he's supposed to be 5.10. Depp is around 5.8.
jtm said on 3/Jan/11
well if mccartney had a footwear advantage over depp and is still shorter then that would make him 5'6 because depp is 5'8.
well if mccartney had a footwear advantage over depp and is still shorter then that would make him 5'6 because depp is 5'8.
me said on 1/Jan/11
@jordan
good find. Maybe McCartney need a downgrade? I looks like Mac has more footwear too. You can tell by his hip being higher in that pic.
@jordan
good find. Maybe McCartney need a downgrade? I looks like Mac has more footwear too. You can tell by his hip being higher in that pic.
Jordan said on 31/Dec/10
hmmmm.... they say johnny's a 5'8 maybe a weak 5'9 guy, after seeing this i don't know what to think anymore
Click Here
hmmmm.... they say johnny's a 5'8 maybe a weak 5'9 guy, after seeing this i don't know what to think anymore
Click Here
me said on 21/Dec/10
@Bevyn
They looked like the 3 stooges.
@Bevyn
They looked like the 3 stooges.
Bevyn said on 20/Dec/10
Wow, they look shorter in photos and movies/TV....
Wow, they look shorter in photos and movies/TV....
me said on 14/Dec/10
@kevin
I've noticed that too.
@kevin
I've noticed that too.
mcfan said on 13/Dec/10
Anonymous, that's simply not true. John is taller than Paul in the Abbey Road walk that I'm sure you're referencing. It only takes some quick glance to see John is hunched with his hands in his pockets and Paul is walking on his heels barefoot. How you come up with 1.5 inches for Paul and not almost an inch for John tells me you have not studied the Abbey Road footage. John is clearly taller than Paul on the album cover. There is an incline in the road left to right. To quote Macca's own words, or rather, to summarize it we were both 5'10.5.
Anonymous, that's simply not true. John is taller than Paul in the Abbey Road walk that I'm sure you're referencing. It only takes some quick glance to see John is hunched with his hands in his pockets and Paul is walking on his heels barefoot. How you come up with 1.5 inches for Paul and not almost an inch for John tells me you have not studied the Abbey Road footage. John is clearly taller than Paul on the album cover. There is an incline in the road left to right. To quote Macca's own words, or rather, to summarize it we were both 5'10.5.
TallGuy said on 13/Dec/10
Looked about two to three inches shorter than Jimmy Fallon, who is nearly six feet tall, so I would say Paul is currently 5'9" and some change.
Looked about two to three inches shorter than Jimmy Fallon, who is nearly six feet tall, so I would say Paul is currently 5'9" and some change.
Anonymous said on 12/Dec/10
in an old beatles poster that I have there walking in a line and lennon is wearing shoes and mccartney is barefoot and he's about 1 and 1/2 shorter than lennon...he's shrunken since... so he's about 5'8 1/2 at night and 5'11 in the morning.
in an old beatles poster that I have there walking in a line and lennon is wearing shoes and mccartney is barefoot and he's about 1 and 1/2 shorter than lennon...he's shrunken since... so he's about 5'8 1/2 at night and 5'11 in the morning.
Lefty said on 10/Dec/10
It is so strange that I asked the question how tall is he and obviously many others were wondering the same thing. I noticed that Paul McCartney seemed so much shorter than Jimmy Fallon.
It is so strange that I asked the question how tall is he and obviously many others were wondering the same thing. I noticed that Paul McCartney seemed so much shorter than Jimmy Fallon.
Christian said on 10/Dec/10
Standing next to Jimmy Fallon, Paul lokked 5'9'' but it could have been the angle.
Standing next to Jimmy Fallon, Paul lokked 5'9'' but it could have been the angle.
Kevin said on 10/Dec/10
Fallon was swearing heeled dress shoes, while Paul was wearing flat tennis shoes
Fallon was swearing heeled dress shoes, while Paul was wearing flat tennis shoes
AD said on 10/Dec/10
That would make sense cause Macca is most definately 5'9.5"
That would make sense cause Macca is most definately 5'9.5"
smegma said on 10/Dec/10
Just saw him on Jimmy Fallon and Fallon (listed at 5'11.75" is easily 2-3 inches taller.
Just saw him on Jimmy Fallon and Fallon (listed at 5'11.75" is easily 2-3 inches taller.
elaine pappas said on 10/Dec/10
paul mcCartney is not 5 10 standing next to jimmy fallon paul is 2 inchs shorter then fallon
paul mcCartney is not 5 10 standing next to jimmy fallon paul is 2 inchs shorter then fallon
Mack said on 10/Dec/10
John and Paul both 5'6, George was 5'3 and Ringo is 4'11".
John and Paul both 5'6, George was 5'3 and Ringo is 4'11".
Josep said on 9/Dec/10
Podeis consultar en Click Here , si no recuerdo mal estan entre 1,78 y 1,80 (McCartney algo m탡s alto que los dem탡s), sin embargo a Ringo le dan 1,70.
Podeis consultar en Click Here , si no recuerdo mal estan entre 1,78 y 1,80 (McCartney algo m탡s alto que los dem탡s), sin embargo a Ringo le dan 1,70.
Gregorovich said on 4/Dec/10
Anonymous, just because a document is official or govt issued does not mean it is 100% accurate. For my US military ID card, the person making the card asked me for my height. People are just issuing the document and don't really care how accurate certain things are as long as they are in the ball park (within say two inches).
Anonymous, just because a document is official or govt issued does not mean it is 100% accurate. For my US military ID card, the person making the card asked me for my height. People are just issuing the document and don't really care how accurate certain things are as long as they are in the ball park (within say two inches).
Anonymous said on 3/Dec/10
John Lennon was definitely 5,11 feet (= 180 cm.). That's what his passport said! These documents are still available and there exist pictures / copies of his pass.
I think there are some pictures in the web, too... Yeah, I just found one:
Click Here
Look at this; it definitely says, 5'11.
John Lennon was definitely 5,11 feet (= 180 cm.). That's what his passport said! These documents are still available and there exist pictures / copies of his pass.
I think there are some pictures in the web, too... Yeah, I just found one:
Click Here
Look at this; it definitely says, 5'11.
Anonymous said on 27/Nov/10
To me, The taller Beatles always looked to be within the 174-179cm range. I'd wager John and Paul were, in youth, about 5'10". The average height of a man back then would have been around 5'8" as opposed to today's 5'9"1/2"-5'10" average.
Five foot ten and a half inches tall is a fair estimate; maybe being a bit clingy to that half inch... Alas we shall never know for sure now that they are, as we will all be, either old and slouching or dead.
Greatest honors to the Fab Four; especially John and Paul, who were at the helm of their melodic sound. I'm glad to have been born into an era that can at least still appreciate their music for all it is worth (albeit it would have been pretty bad-ass to experience it first hand).
RIP The Beatles, the modern era needs your talent and, over anything, your rock and roll attitude more than ever. Pop music post 1980 has been as a plague upon activist, free-thinking minds.
To me, The taller Beatles always looked to be within the 174-179cm range. I'd wager John and Paul were, in youth, about 5'10". The average height of a man back then would have been around 5'8" as opposed to today's 5'9"1/2"-5'10" average.
Five foot ten and a half inches tall is a fair estimate; maybe being a bit clingy to that half inch... Alas we shall never know for sure now that they are, as we will all be, either old and slouching or dead.
Greatest honors to the Fab Four; especially John and Paul, who were at the helm of their melodic sound. I'm glad to have been born into an era that can at least still appreciate their music for all it is worth (albeit it would have been pretty bad-ass to experience it first hand).
RIP The Beatles, the modern era needs your talent and, over anything, your rock and roll attitude more than ever. Pop music post 1980 has been as a plague upon activist, free-thinking minds.
Chris said on 16/Nov/10
Yep, that's a toupee. His hair got thicker over the last few years. Also, looks extremely fake now.
Yep, that's a toupee. His hair got thicker over the last few years. Also, looks extremely fake now.
me said on 9/Nov/10
@jamesgp
Did you really had a chance encounter with the Sir?
@jamesgp
Did you really had a chance encounter with the Sir?
me said on 4/Nov/10
5.10 in the 60's is quite tall for people in Liverpool. You can tell be looking at the old pictures of them and they were always 4 or 5 inches taller than everyone else there.
5.10 in the 60's is quite tall for people in Liverpool. You can tell be looking at the old pictures of them and they were always 4 or 5 inches taller than everyone else there.
JAMESGP said on 2/Nov/10
I was drinking in the Toucan off soho square and Macca was in there with Suggs-I am 5"10' and Macca was definitley shorter than me so would say 5"8' for me to notice- an very dyed hair!
I was drinking in the Toucan off soho square and Macca was in there with Suggs-I am 5"10' and Macca was definitley shorter than me so would say 5"8' for me to notice- an very dyed hair!
castillo said on 2/Nov/10
In his authorised biog, Barry Miles, who knew Macca at the time, said in the 60s Paul and Jane Asher were a striking couple and that this was partly because Paul was quite tall. In the 60s, 5' 10 1/2" was quite tall and as others say he's never seemed insecure about his height like lots of other stars. NB he does wear quite big heels on stage these days but his guitarists are pretty tall so he probably just wants to look in proportion. I'd go with 5'10" ish in the 60s with the usual shrinkage now so probably 5' 9" ish. (A recent article on The Scaffold remarked on the "imposing" height of Paul's brother, Mike.)
In his authorised biog, Barry Miles, who knew Macca at the time, said in the 60s Paul and Jane Asher were a striking couple and that this was partly because Paul was quite tall. In the 60s, 5' 10 1/2" was quite tall and as others say he's never seemed insecure about his height like lots of other stars. NB he does wear quite big heels on stage these days but his guitarists are pretty tall so he probably just wants to look in proportion. I'd go with 5'10" ish in the 60s with the usual shrinkage now so probably 5' 9" ish. (A recent article on The Scaffold remarked on the "imposing" height of Paul's brother, Mike.)
mcfan said on 23/May/09
guyfrommars -- that would make Mohammed Ali 6'4 at least.
guyfrommars -- that would make Mohammed Ali 6'4 at least.
guyfrommars said on 10/May/09
I've seen Beatles advertising cards from 1963 and they described Paul and George as 6ft tall, which they were with Cuban heels on.
I've seen Beatles advertising cards from 1963 and they described Paul and George as 6ft tall, which they were with Cuban heels on.
Dylan said on 6/May/09
Paul McCartney was always listed as 5'11" in the sixties, as was John Lennon and George Harrison, however, many years later when he became a vegetarian and lost weight an article in the newspaper stating his height and weight quoted him as being 5'9", I often wonder whether alot of the pop stars in the sixties were measured with their cuban heels.
Paul McCartney was always listed as 5'11" in the sixties, as was John Lennon and George Harrison, however, many years later when he became a vegetarian and lost weight an article in the newspaper stating his height and weight quoted him as being 5'9", I often wonder whether alot of the pop stars in the sixties were measured with their cuban heels.
mcfan said on 5/May/09
Christian,
I agree looks about 5'9.5 next to Pegg. Macca still looks good compared to Jagger and Richards, that's for sure.
Christian,
I agree looks about 5'9.5 next to Pegg. Macca still looks good compared to Jagger and Richards, that's for sure.
Christian said on 4/May/09
Pic with Paul and 5'11'' Tom Fletcher.
Click Here
Paul and 6'2'' Rhys Ifans
Click Here
Another angle
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
With simon Pegg, although Paul is further away.
Click Here
I noticed that Paul had a bit of heel on his shoes. I think he looks 5.9-5.9.5
Pic with Paul and 5'11'' Tom Fletcher.
Click Here
Paul and 6'2'' Rhys Ifans
Click Here
Another angle
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
With simon Pegg, although Paul is further away.
Click Here
I noticed that Paul had a bit of heel on his shoes. I think he looks 5.9-5.9.5
Lebensdorf said on 10/Apr/09
I saw him yesterday, but I was sitting down as he passed me by in a New York hotel lobby. He seemed pretty tall to me, actually, even though I could not judge correctly. He was quite lean, 5'10'' at least.
I saw him yesterday, but I was sitting down as he passed me by in a New York hotel lobby. He seemed pretty tall to me, actually, even though I could not judge correctly. He was quite lean, 5'10'' at least.
Joan said on 1/Apr/09
By the time of his death, John had lost height due to his slump-shouldered posture over the years. When referring to the very early Beatles, however, you have to remember that Paul was still practically a baby. He probably didn't reach his full height until he was about 19 or 20. George was the youngest, so he was way shorter than the others until he reached that age as well. But each in their prime, early to mid-twenties, I would place them at Paul having been 5'11", John 5'10, George 5'9.5" and Ringo 5'7". Paul may be around 5'10 now. I haven't seen him for years, but I should think losing an inch of height is not at all unusual for a man approaching his late sixties.
By the time of his death, John had lost height due to his slump-shouldered posture over the years. When referring to the very early Beatles, however, you have to remember that Paul was still practically a baby. He probably didn't reach his full height until he was about 19 or 20. George was the youngest, so he was way shorter than the others until he reached that age as well. But each in their prime, early to mid-twenties, I would place them at Paul having been 5'11", John 5'10, George 5'9.5" and Ringo 5'7". Paul may be around 5'10 now. I haven't seen him for years, but I should think losing an inch of height is not at all unusual for a man approaching his late sixties.
mcfan said on 18/Mar/09
Here he is in the late 70s (mid 30s age) looking about 5'10 next to Big George Martin (6'2). He always dwarfed the Beatles:
Click Here
Here he is in the late 70s (mid 30s age) looking about 5'10 next to Big George Martin (6'2). He always dwarfed the Beatles:
Click Here
glenn said on 18/Mar/09
cant argue with that mcfan.though i was never a fan.more a stones guy.but you are right.
cant argue with that mcfan.though i was never a fan.more a stones guy.but you are right.
glenn said on 18/Mar/09
exactly anon.its obvious paul was at least 5-11 peak.
exactly anon.its obvious paul was at least 5-11 peak.
Anon said on 18/Mar/09
Paul was quite tall at his peak, maybe even 5'11.5". Well, I consider that somewhat tall anyway since it's a couple inches more than me.
5'10" today seems about right. He definitely doesn't look as lanky as he used to.
Paul was quite tall at his peak, maybe even 5'11.5". Well, I consider that somewhat tall anyway since it's a couple inches more than me.
5'10" today seems about right. He definitely doesn't look as lanky as he used to.
mcfan said on 14/Mar/09
Regardless of his height...he's the greatest musician that ever lived.
Regardless of his height...he's the greatest musician that ever lived.
glenn said on 5/Mar/09
i agree with mcfan that they might both be leaning,and that paul is barely 5-10,but kanye i really think is taller than 5-8.
i agree with mcfan that they might both be leaning,and that paul is barely 5-10,but kanye i really think is taller than 5-8.
Leung said on 4/Mar/09
I agree about Kanye being 5
I agree about Kanye being 5
Christian said on 4/Mar/09
Thanks for backing me up Glenn. Mcfan, maybe you are right, but if Kanye is 5'8-5'8
Thanks for backing me up Glenn. Mcfan, maybe you are right, but if Kanye is 5'8-5'8
mcfan said on 4/Mar/09
I agree he -- Kanye looks a half-inch taller than you in the photo you have posted if you are 5'7.5 - 5'8. If he Kanye is 5'8.5 then I agree with you, Glenn, that Paul must be close to 5'10 today, but I don't think he has lost height like other musicians in his day have like Richards and Jagger who both look like shrunken heads on toothpicks.
I agree he -- Kanye looks a half-inch taller than you in the photo you have posted if you are 5'7.5 - 5'8. If he Kanye is 5'8.5 then I agree with you, Glenn, that Paul must be close to 5'10 today, but I don't think he has lost height like other musicians in his day have like Richards and Jagger who both look like shrunken heads on toothpicks.
glenn said on 4/Mar/09
kanye is 5-8.5 to me.possibly 5-9.i say 5-8 flat,only in the evening.
kanye is 5-8.5 to me.possibly 5-9.i say 5-8 flat,only in the evening.
mcfan said on 3/Mar/09
They both are leaning in a similar fashion.
They both are leaning in a similar fashion.
mcfan said on 2/Mar/09
If Kenya West is 5'8?...then Paul is barely over an inch taller than him. How do you get 5'10 out of that?
If Kenya West is 5'8?...then Paul is barely over an inch taller than him. How do you get 5'10 out of that?
Hiro said on 23/Feb/09
It is Hiro of Japanese Kanagawa. I watched Paul in a hotel lobby of Japanese Tokyo in 2002. My height 5ft9in (175cm). Paul took 1in than me high. Generally the height of Paul is 5ft9 .75in
It is Hiro of Japanese Kanagawa. I watched Paul in a hotel lobby of Japanese Tokyo in 2002. My height 5ft9in (175cm). Paul took 1in than me high. Generally the height of Paul is 5ft9 .75in
mcfan said on 15/Feb/09
Christian, that is a lot more than an inch difference. I'm seeing at least two inches. Pause it when Terry almost stands up straight before Paul sits down. If Terry is 6ft, which I have I cannot vouch for, then Paul is 5'9.75 - 5'10 in the video.
Christian, that is a lot more than an inch difference. I'm seeing at least two inches. Pause it when Terry almost stands up straight before Paul sits down. If Terry is 6ft, which I have I cannot vouch for, then Paul is 5'9.75 - 5'10 in the video.
Christian said on 14/Feb/09
Paul and 6 feet Terry Wogan back in 1987. The angle is not the best but you can see that Terry is at least an inch taller. Terry with shoes is about 6'1'', making Paul, 5.11.75 with shoes. So maybe just under 5'11'' for Paul at that time? Look at about 40 sec when standing up. Click Here
Paul and 6 feet Terry Wogan back in 1987. The angle is not the best but you can see that Terry is at least an inch taller. Terry with shoes is about 6'1'', making Paul, 5.11.75 with shoes. So maybe just under 5'11'' for Paul at that time? Look at about 40 sec when standing up. Click Here
mcfan said on 10/Feb/09
I'm the one that said Pang described him as 5'9.5. In fact, her exact words were "John was about 5'9.5." It was a taped interview I think in late 1988. It had to do with the Albert Goldman book "The Lives of John Lennon." The book sparked a tremendous amount of controversy at the time because there were several claims in it that involved John's life that were unfounded. I'm not disputing what May Pang said in Loving John, but she said something entirely different on Arsenio Hall with John being 5'9.5.
I agree with Rob that John looked just under 5'10 and Paul 5'9.5 now and 5'10 back then. Harrison looked 5'9.5.
I'm the one that said Pang described him as 5'9.5. In fact, her exact words were "John was about 5'9.5." It was a taped interview I think in late 1988. It had to do with the Albert Goldman book "The Lives of John Lennon." The book sparked a tremendous amount of controversy at the time because there were several claims in it that involved John's life that were unfounded. I'm not disputing what May Pang said in Loving John, but she said something entirely different on Arsenio Hall with John being 5'9.5.
I agree with Rob that John looked just under 5'10 and Paul 5'9.5 now and 5'10 back then. Harrison looked 5'9.5.
glenn said on 10/Feb/09
thanks for backing me brad that lenos height is all over the place.
thanks for backing me brad that lenos height is all over the place.
glenn said on 10/Feb/09
in every pic is saw,paul was the tallest beatle.thats why i dont understand these 5-10 peak claims.plus i saw him give me the illusion of 6ft in 2000! in dress shoes.i saw him at 5-11 plenty of times.he sure wasnt a few weeks ago.
in every pic is saw,paul was the tallest beatle.thats why i dont understand these 5-10 peak claims.plus i saw him give me the illusion of 6ft in 2000! in dress shoes.i saw him at 5-11 plenty of times.he sure wasnt a few weeks ago.
Christian said on 9/Feb/09
In the book called Loving John, the untold story written by May Pang she mention that John Lennon was 5'11''. That is interesting cause someone in here said that she also described John as 5'9
In the book called Loving John, the untold story written by May Pang she mention that John Lennon was 5'11''. That is interesting cause someone in here said that she also described John as 5'9
mcfan said on 9/Feb/09
He still looks relatively good. Yeah, I think he's close to 5'10 at 5'9.5, with, as always, great posture. My disagreement is in his peak height, which I think should be 5'10...5'11 in shoes. Next to Jimmy Page, he's my favorite musician of all time.
My buddy (same height as me -- 5'10, an even bigger Paul-fan than me) got to go to his concert in Toronto in 1998-2000? (I can't remember exactly). He said shockingly that Paul was shorter than us. I told him that I read in a couple interviews that Paul was described as around 5'9 in the 90s. My buddy told me he thought Paul would have been taller than us. He estimated Paul as no more than 5'9.5 maybe 5'9. I vividly remember this as this was the first thing he told me about the concert...not how good it was or stuff like that, but Paul's height. (I guess he had the impression of Paul as being tall.)
He still looks relatively good. Yeah, I think he's close to 5'10 at 5'9.5, with, as always, great posture. My disagreement is in his peak height, which I think should be 5'10...5'11 in shoes. Next to Jimmy Page, he's my favorite musician of all time.
My buddy (same height as me -- 5'10, an even bigger Paul-fan than me) got to go to his concert in Toronto in 1998-2000? (I can't remember exactly). He said shockingly that Paul was shorter than us. I told him that I read in a couple interviews that Paul was described as around 5'9 in the 90s. My buddy told me he thought Paul would have been taller than us. He estimated Paul as no more than 5'9.5 maybe 5'9. I vividly remember this as this was the first thing he told me about the concert...not how good it was or stuff like that, but Paul's height. (I guess he had the impression of Paul as being tall.)
Mr. R. said on 9/Feb/09
Did anybody else see the giant heels that Sir Paul wore on the Grammy Awards? They were HUGE!
Did anybody else see the giant heels that Sir Paul wore on the Grammy Awards? They were HUGE!
Brad said on 9/Feb/09
Leno wears lifts on The Tonight Show. In person he's all over the place in height. Walked right by me but had a big slouch.
Leno wears lifts on The Tonight Show. In person he's all over the place in height. Walked right by me but had a big slouch.
Christian said on 8/Feb/09
mcfan-I meant to write that I think Paul has lost 1 inch since The Beatles and yes I agree he looks very good for a man his age and background. I would say he was 5'11'' in his youth and Glenn say Paul is 5'10'' today, that means he was close to 5'11''.
mcfan-I meant to write that I think Paul has lost 1 inch since The Beatles and yes I agree he looks very good for a man his age and background. I would say he was 5'11'' in his youth and Glenn say Paul is 5'10'' today, that means he was close to 5'11''.
mcfan said on 8/Feb/09
I think he is more 5'9.5 than 5'10. 5'10 at peak. Let's not forget May Pang stated John's height at 5'9.5 and Paul is either his height or a hair taller. I vividly remember Tom Jones was taller than Paul as well. There was a video around of that 1966 awards show somewhere. Having said that, I think Jones was closer to 5'11 in the 60s and 70s.
I think he is more 5'9.5 than 5'10. 5'10 at peak. Let's not forget May Pang stated John's height at 5'9.5 and Paul is either his height or a hair taller. I vividly remember Tom Jones was taller than Paul as well. There was a video around of that 1966 awards show somewhere. Having said that, I think Jones was closer to 5'11 in the 60s and 70s.
glenn said on 8/Feb/09
one thing is for sure mcfan.you were right all along that mccartney is barely 5-10 today.but im certain he was 5-11 peak.
one thing is for sure mcfan.you were right all along that mccartney is barely 5-10 today.but im certain he was 5-11 peak.
glenn said on 8/Feb/09
interesting mcfan.leno is tricky.i agree with you though.but leno can look 5-10 to 6ft at times.illusions.
interesting mcfan.leno is tricky.i agree with you though.but leno can look 5-10 to 6ft at times.illusions.
mcfan said on 7/Feb/09
Leno looked over an inch taller than Paul on one of the more recent shows. To me Leno looks not quite 5'11.
Leno looked over an inch taller than Paul on one of the more recent shows. To me Leno looks not quite 5'11.
glenn said on 7/Feb/09
richards and mccartney shrunk.not jagger.
richards and mccartney shrunk.not jagger.
glenn said on 7/Feb/09
and i was up 24 hours to look this height above.
and i was up 24 hours to look this height above.
glenn said on 6/Feb/09
well,the pic proves im 5-8.but paul is 5-10 min now.5-11ish max.he is posture does make him look 5-9ish.
well,the pic proves im 5-8.but paul is 5-10 min now.5-11ish max.he is posture does make him look 5-9ish.
Christian said on 6/Feb/09
Yes, I think he has shrunk 1.5 inch since The Beatles. I think 5'10'' is to high. I would go with 5.9.25-5.9.5 for Paul today. Here he is on "The View" looking quite tall but the ladies are short. He looks good for a 66 year old. Click Here
Yes, I think he has shrunk 1.5 inch since The Beatles. I think 5'10'' is to high. I would go with 5.9.25-5.9.5 for Paul today. Here he is on "The View" looking quite tall but the ladies are short. He looks good for a 66 year old. Click Here
mcfan said on 3/Feb/09
He only looks 5'9 or 5'9.25 if Glenn is 5'8. My buddy (5'10) got within feet of Paul and said he was only around 5'9. I vividly remember this because when I asked how the Toronto show went, he remarked at how short Paul was. He thought Paul was 6ft.
He only looks 5'9 or 5'9.25 if Glenn is 5'8. My buddy (5'10) got within feet of Paul and said he was only around 5'9. I vividly remember this because when I asked how the Toronto show went, he remarked at how short Paul was. He thought Paul was 6ft.
glenn said on 3/Feb/09
i dont go nightclubbing and this is 8am.i was up from the day before,probably at my lowest height,and my head is tilted back on purpose.
i dont go nightclubbing and this is 8am.i was up from the day before,probably at my lowest height,and my head is tilted back on purpose.
MakJagger said on 2/Feb/09
I didn't know McCartney was this tall, always had the impression of him being around 5'9 - which is what he looks like compared to Glenn. By the way Glenn, go easy on the nightclubs LOL - look at those bags around his eyes. Seriously u've aged alot during these years i've seen you (excessive nightclubbing can be dangerous to your youth!)
I didn't know McCartney was this tall, always had the impression of him being around 5'9 - which is what he looks like compared to Glenn. By the way Glenn, go easy on the nightclubs LOL - look at those bags around his eyes. Seriously u've aged alot during these years i've seen you (excessive nightclubbing can be dangerous to your youth!)
glenn said on 31/Jan/09
i agree pan eden.
i agree pan eden.
Gan Eden said on 30/Jan/09
Well, according to this pic; Click Here Sir Paul is the corect height as Pete Waterman is around 5'11.
Well, according to this pic; Click Here Sir Paul is the corect height as Pete Waterman is around 5'11.
glenn said on 30/Jan/09
5-10 today.5-11 peak.
5-10 today.5-11 peak.
Christian said on 29/Jan/09
Your mother shuld know is a great video to compare their heights. However I still believe Paul was closer to 5'11'' during the 60:s. Lets say he was 5'10
Your mother shuld know is a great video to compare their heights. However I still believe Paul was closer to 5'11'' during the 60:s. Lets say he was 5'10
Brad said on 29/Jan/09
5' 10" today.
5' 10" today.
Lego said on 27/Jan/09
yep looks in the 5'9.5 range in that last pic with the footwear.
yep looks in the 5'9.5 range in that last pic with the footwear.
Vibram said on 26/Jan/09
178cm (5ft10.25) peak, 176cm (5ft9.5) today. Compare to 5ft6.5 (170cm) Nancy Shevell and his chunkier footwear advantage: Click Here
178cm (5ft10.25) peak, 176cm (5ft9.5) today. Compare to 5ft6.5 (170cm) Nancy Shevell and his chunkier footwear advantage: Click Here
glenn said on 25/Jan/09
that is a unique shirt.
that is a unique shirt.
runt said on 25/Jan/09
I saw a cute t-shirt. It showed John, Paul and George with brown skin and Ringo with white skin. It captioned the pictures thusly: Juan, Pablo, Jorge and Gringo.
I saw a cute t-shirt. It showed John, Paul and George with brown skin and Ringo with white skin. It captioned the pictures thusly: Juan, Pablo, Jorge and Gringo.
mcfan said on 24/Jan/09
He still looks 5'9.5. We've already established through video his peak height was Johnny Carson's height at 5'10. He's got a small head and high shoulders. Take Tobey Maguire for example who has a long neck with low shoulders. If you were to stand next to Tobey, I'm sure he would give the impression of being shorter than he is because of this. With someone with high shoulders like Macca, he gives the impression of being taller than he truly is.
Click Here
Click Here (Lennon -- looking the same height as McCartney in this video has Tobey Maguire's long neck and lower shoulders)
He still looks 5'9.5. We've already established through video his peak height was Johnny Carson's height at 5'10. He's got a small head and high shoulders. Take Tobey Maguire for example who has a long neck with low shoulders. If you were to stand next to Tobey, I'm sure he would give the impression of being shorter than he is because of this. With someone with high shoulders like Macca, he gives the impression of being taller than he truly is.
Click Here
Click Here (Lennon -- looking the same height as McCartney in this video has Tobey Maguire's long neck and lower shoulders)
Ranger Rick said on 24/Jan/09
just saw was flipping a beetles' picture book last night, and they had the pic w/ "ali" (didn't realize, they actually wanted to pose with liston, but he wouldn't, this was right before clay won him), and the 6'3" ali looked a good 5" above the hieghest betle, fwiw, lol...cheers'!
just saw was flipping a beetles' picture book last night, and they had the pic w/ "ali" (didn't realize, they actually wanted to pose with liston, but he wouldn't, this was right before clay won him), and the 6'3" ali looked a good 5" above the hieghest betle, fwiw, lol...cheers'!
glenn said on 23/Jan/09
he is the most valued autograph.even over alot of deceased celebs.there are a million pics of him that day.and a million of me in general.i was wondering if i can fix the top of the pics using photo shop.thats what i meant.
he is the most valued autograph.even over alot of deceased celebs.there are a million pics of him that day.and a million of me in general.i was wondering if i can fix the top of the pics using photo shop.thats what i meant.
ACG said on 23/Jan/09
Sorry, I didn't read a few comments down.....are you talking about a fake autograph?
Sorry, I didn't read a few comments down.....are you talking about a fake autograph?
ACG said on 23/Jan/09
glenn says on 22/Jan/09
thanks risingforce.now is anyone experts on photo shop? is it impossible to doctor this?
coming from a tech geek, i hate to break it to you but each and every last one of your pictures could have been digitally altered to make it look like some "loser" known as glenn had met every single celeb known to mankind.
of course this is not the case, but it is theoretically possible....so when you ask whether it is impossible to doctor something like this with photoshop, the answer is a very big NO. you can pretty much make anything look like anything with that program; it's pretty scary what sort of results can be achieved....and this is coming from someone whose been using it for over half a decade!
exactly what sort of "doctoring" did you have in mind, anyway? i'd be able to answer your question better....hope i've been of at least some help.
oh, and humongous kudos on snagging Paul! My fav. Beatle. And I had no clue he was so sought after....
glenn says on 22/Jan/09
thanks risingforce.now is anyone experts on photo shop? is it impossible to doctor this?
coming from a tech geek, i hate to break it to you but each and every last one of your pictures could have been digitally altered to make it look like some "loser" known as glenn had met every single celeb known to mankind.
of course this is not the case, but it is theoretically possible....so when you ask whether it is impossible to doctor something like this with photoshop, the answer is a very big NO. you can pretty much make anything look like anything with that program; it's pretty scary what sort of results can be achieved....and this is coming from someone whose been using it for over half a decade!
exactly what sort of "doctoring" did you have in mind, anyway? i'd be able to answer your question better....hope i've been of at least some help.
oh, and humongous kudos on snagging Paul! My fav. Beatle. And I had no clue he was so sought after....
guyfrommars said on 23/Jan/09
In Beatles promotional cards from the early 1960s Paul and George are listed as 6ft, John as 5ft11.5, Ringo as 5ft8. Of course these are highly exaggerated, this was their height in the 2inch Cuban heels they were wearing those days. This makes Paul and George 5ft10, John 5ft9.5 and Ringo 5ft6 which is probably correct.
In Beatles promotional cards from the early 1960s Paul and George are listed as 6ft, John as 5ft11.5, Ringo as 5ft8. Of course these are highly exaggerated, this was their height in the 2inch Cuban heels they were wearing those days. This makes Paul and George 5ft10, John 5ft9.5 and Ringo 5ft6 which is probably correct.
glenn said on 22/Jan/09
possible james.he sure looked it in some pics.
possible james.he sure looked it in some pics.
Lego said on 22/Jan/09
he aged a lot, yet a timeless guy.
looks 176-177cm to me, i dont believe Paul was ever 180cm, i think he was 178-179cm mostly and nowadays a weak 5'10 in the 176-177cm region.
never striked me as a proper 5'11.
he aged a lot, yet a timeless guy.
looks 176-177cm to me, i dont believe Paul was ever 180cm, i think he was 178-179cm mostly and nowadays a weak 5'10 in the 176-177cm region.
never striked me as a proper 5'11.
glenn said on 22/Jan/09
thanks risingforce.now is anyone experts on photo shop? is it impossible to doctor this?
thanks risingforce.now is anyone experts on photo shop? is it impossible to doctor this?
glenn said on 22/Jan/09
exactly brad.just my point indeed.
exactly brad.just my point indeed.
Anonymous said on 22/Jan/09
I think he's peak height was 5'10" and now he's 5'9.25 or so.
I think he's peak height was 5'10" and now he's 5'9.25 or so.
Brad said on 22/Jan/09
If you see his signature under $500 it is a stone fake.
If you see his signature under $500 it is a stone fake.
RisingForce said on 22/Jan/09
This truly is a great picture to have. Congratulations Glenn.
This truly is a great picture to have. Congratulations Glenn.
glenn said on 22/Jan/09
he did have horrendous posture.to everyone i talked to,this is as big as it gets.everyone was still envious.despite the head cropping.rarely poses in the street.never in the 2000s actually.i agree.nobody tops this guy.im not a big beatles fan.but michael jackson and tom cruise dont compare.most valued monetary wise celeb there is.ill take the head crop.over the donuts everyone else got.whats the shape of a donut? 0.thats what.thats the lingo we use here when people get nothing.that or "a box of krispy kreams".is that with ks?
he did have horrendous posture.to everyone i talked to,this is as big as it gets.everyone was still envious.despite the head cropping.rarely poses in the street.never in the 2000s actually.i agree.nobody tops this guy.im not a big beatles fan.but michael jackson and tom cruise dont compare.most valued monetary wise celeb there is.ill take the head crop.over the donuts everyone else got.whats the shape of a donut? 0.thats what.thats the lingo we use here when people get nothing.that or "a box of krispy kreams".is that with ks?
glenn said on 22/Jan/09
mccartney was the tallest at 5-11 minimum.
mccartney was the tallest at 5-11 minimum.
glenn said on 22/Jan/09
micheal jackson i saw and believed at 5-9 also.but upon examining full body pics,10 pics over a 10 year period that a girl i know has,with michael,he looked 5-10 or 5-11 next to her.and she is 5-8.and sometimes she wore heels.sometimes she didnt.he wore flat moccasin types,it seemed.she estimated him at 5-10 minimum.
micheal jackson i saw and believed at 5-9 also.but upon examining full body pics,10 pics over a 10 year period that a girl i know has,with michael,he looked 5-10 or 5-11 next to her.and she is 5-8.and sometimes she wore heels.sometimes she didnt.he wore flat moccasin types,it seemed.she estimated him at 5-10 minimum.
T.J. said on 21/Jan/09
Paul was the tallest Beatle.
John was in the 5-9/5-10 range. Ringo was 5'6" and George was 5'10.5"
Paul was 5'11"
Paul was the tallest Beatle.
John was in the 5-9/5-10 range. Ringo was 5'6" and George was 5'10.5"
Paul was 5'11"
Brad said on 21/Jan/09
Paul was the tallest. 5' 11" peak.
Paul was the tallest. 5' 11" peak.
Christian said on 21/Jan/09
-Richard, This is what I think.
Paul was the tallest at 5'11''. John was a 0.75 inch shorter, making him 5'10.25, George was 5'10'' and Ringo 5'6
-Richard, This is what I think.
Paul was the tallest at 5'11''. John was a 0.75 inch shorter, making him 5'10.25, George was 5'10'' and Ringo 5'6
glenn said on 21/Jan/09
i dont have time to explain full story till later.not my first pic with macca.i believe this was done on purpose.the head cropping.3 out of 30 people all day obtained it.i feel triumphed.5-11 min in his youth.could swear 6ft in 2000 to 2001.5-10 now.barely.
i dont have time to explain full story till later.not my first pic with macca.i believe this was done on purpose.the head cropping.3 out of 30 people all day obtained it.i feel triumphed.5-11 min in his youth.could swear 6ft in 2000 to 2001.5-10 now.barely.
ACG said on 21/Jan/09
RICHARD: no, if you read the comments below, the tallest was most likely Paul, who could've been 6' at peak.
mcfan: Jacko is well OVER 5'9, not under as you say...
RICHARD: no, if you read the comments below, the tallest was most likely Paul, who could've been 6' at peak.
mcfan: Jacko is well OVER 5'9, not under as you say...
GUK said on 21/Jan/09
Looks 5ft 9 above at best
Looks 5ft 9 above at best
Mr. T said on 21/Jan/09
He looks like he could still be 5'11" if straightened out.
He looks like he could still be 5'11" if straightened out.
RICHARD said on 21/Jan/09
WHo was the tallest Beatle ? I think Lennon was but I'm not sure
WHo was the tallest Beatle ? I think Lennon was but I'm not sure
Christian said on 21/Jan/09
Cool Glenn, What is your estimate on Paul? 5'10''?
Cool Glenn, What is your estimate on Paul? 5'10''?
cyberyank said on 18/Dec/08
McCartney is 5'9". Around the same height as Michael Jackson.
McCartney is 5'9". Around the same height as Michael Jackson.
mcfan said on 16/Dec/08
Sure you did David Breese. How come 5'11 Knopfler and Sting always look 1.5-2 inches taller than Paul whenever they appear with him in concert?
Click Here
They've appeared together more than a couple of times. It's amazing that Paul's height is still 5'11 after all that has been proven. These three Beatles were 5'9.5-5'10 at their peak. I also believe Paul wears lifts today at times. If you look at SNL in 1989 (47 years old) he's only 1.5 inches taller than 5'8 Chris Farley.
Sure you did David Breese. How come 5'11 Knopfler and Sting always look 1.5-2 inches taller than Paul whenever they appear with him in concert?
Click Here
They've appeared together more than a couple of times. It's amazing that Paul's height is still 5'11 after all that has been proven. These three Beatles were 5'9.5-5'10 at their peak. I also believe Paul wears lifts today at times. If you look at SNL in 1989 (47 years old) he's only 1.5 inches taller than 5'8 Chris Farley.
UNK said on 16/Dec/08
What in the world is going on here guys???? That's barely 5'6" Kate Moss with him... sure she's wearing big heels, but he has some major soles on those sneakers... he doesn't look 5'9" in these pics.
Click Here
Click Here
What in the world is going on here guys???? That's barely 5'6" Kate Moss with him... sure she's wearing big heels, but he has some major soles on those sneakers... he doesn't look 5'9" in these pics.
Click Here
Click Here
glenn said on 14/Dec/08
thank you mr breese for paraphrasing my arguments that sir paul is 5-11 now and possible 6ft peak.its only those that actually meet the celeb that knows the truth.i was shocked he looked 6ft in 2000.
thank you mr breese for paraphrasing my arguments that sir paul is 5-11 now and possible 6ft peak.its only those that actually meet the celeb that knows the truth.i was shocked he looked 6ft in 2000.
David Breese said on 13/Dec/08
Met Sir Paul..shook his hand, 2006..I'm 6'1" and stared him in the eye...I would put him in the 5'11 to 6'0...he had on jeans & tennis shoes..weighed probably 170
Met Sir Paul..shook his hand, 2006..I'm 6'1" and stared him in the eye...I would put him in the 5'11 to 6'0...he had on jeans & tennis shoes..weighed probably 170
Chris said on 1/Dec/08
A pic with Pul and 6'2'' Pete Doherty. If Paul stands straight it you can see he is close to 5'10''. Click Here
A pic with Pul and 6'2'' Pete Doherty. If Paul stands straight it you can see he is close to 5'10''. Click Here
glenn said on 29/Nov/08
jagger usually wears the flatest of shoes.or sneakers.especially on stage since 1989.before then too.but he wore bigger footwear on the 70s,but so did everyone.lately he has been wearing monster custom made sneakers to help with his 6-4 girlfriend.
jagger usually wears the flatest of shoes.or sneakers.especially on stage since 1989.before then too.but he wore bigger footwear on the 70s,but so did everyone.lately he has been wearing monster custom made sneakers to help with his 6-4 girlfriend.
mcfan said on 28/Nov/08
Greg,
I posted some photographs of Lennon/McCartney with the same footwear standing side by side from photo sessions during the early to mid part of the group. You can find these posted under Lennon's name a couple of weeks back.
The fact that Jagger fluctuates with his height tells me the guy wears lifts. Even in the 60s, I think he might have used them at times. Then again, he looks much worse than McCartney. Maybe he's shrunk more than McCartney. Paul looks pretty good. Jagger looks like an old man by comparison. Who knows, Paul could be wearing lifts too. I know I read a couple of interviews even as far back as the late 80s where Paul was said to be 5'9. My co-worker was the same height as me and he got within ten feet of Paul. He thought Paul was a little shorter than him and he was my height 5'10.
Greg,
I posted some photographs of Lennon/McCartney with the same footwear standing side by side from photo sessions during the early to mid part of the group. You can find these posted under Lennon's name a couple of weeks back.
The fact that Jagger fluctuates with his height tells me the guy wears lifts. Even in the 60s, I think he might have used them at times. Then again, he looks much worse than McCartney. Maybe he's shrunk more than McCartney. Paul looks pretty good. Jagger looks like an old man by comparison. Who knows, Paul could be wearing lifts too. I know I read a couple of interviews even as far back as the late 80s where Paul was said to be 5'9. My co-worker was the same height as me and he got within ten feet of Paul. He thought Paul was a little shorter than him and he was my height 5'10.
glenn said on 27/Nov/08
greg-one encounter i can see me making a mistake.the jagger pic below proves my point.jagger is a legit 5-10.i never saw lennon.heard he was 5-9,but now i feel that is too low.5-10 min.though you hear 5-11 claims too with lennon and strangely he did look it a couple times.
greg-one encounter i can see me making a mistake.the jagger pic below proves my point.jagger is a legit 5-10.i never saw lennon.heard he was 5-9,but now i feel that is too low.5-10 min.though you hear 5-11 claims too with lennon and strangely he did look it a couple times.
Ted said on 14/Nov/08
Yeah he's about 5'10-ish. I had a photo once when I was doing security and he was next to me.
Yeah he's about 5'10-ish. I had a photo once when I was doing security and he was next to me.
mcfan said on 6/Nov/08
I agree with you, Greg. This guy never slouches. I still think he's 5'9.5 and was 5'10. It's all posture. There's plenty of photos of him and Harrison together where he looks an inch taller, but it's due to Harrison's slouching and McCartney's posture. He still was a half-inch taller than Harrison.
I totally disagree with Frank2 regarding Tom Jones. Tom was an inch taller than Paul McCartney. There used to be a film of either an award ceremony or where the Beatles and Jones appeared together. It was so obvious of the height difference and it wasn't due to heels. They all wore cuban heels. Even the performance for Linda, Tom was still an inch taller so how this site still has Tom Jones (5'10.5) shorter than Paul (5'11) is beyond comprehension. I would put Tom's old height at 5'11 and Paul's old height at 5'10. That would be more accurate.
I agree with you, Greg. This guy never slouches. I still think he's 5'9.5 and was 5'10. It's all posture. There's plenty of photos of him and Harrison together where he looks an inch taller, but it's due to Harrison's slouching and McCartney's posture. He still was a half-inch taller than Harrison.
I totally disagree with Frank2 regarding Tom Jones. Tom was an inch taller than Paul McCartney. There used to be a film of either an award ceremony or where the Beatles and Jones appeared together. It was so obvious of the height difference and it wasn't due to heels. They all wore cuban heels. Even the performance for Linda, Tom was still an inch taller so how this site still has Tom Jones (5'10.5) shorter than Paul (5'11) is beyond comprehension. I would put Tom's old height at 5'11 and Paul's old height at 5'10. That would be more accurate.
glenn said on 6/Nov/08
what proof do i have? i met this guy plenty of time between 1989 and 2001.he was 5-11.
what proof do i have? i met this guy plenty of time between 1989 and 2001.he was 5-11.
mcfan said on 22/Sep/08
Howard,
That is biggest crock I ever heard. You never met either one.
Howard,
That is biggest crock I ever heard. You never met either one.
Anonymous said on 15/Aug/08
I've only seen cuban heels with one inch heels. I even just did an image search on dogpile.
I used to wear 2-3 inch heeled shoes and the heels looked waaaayyyy taller than what I ever see on cuban heels.
I've only seen cuban heels with one inch heels. I even just did an image search on dogpile.
I used to wear 2-3 inch heeled shoes and the heels looked waaaayyyy taller than what I ever see on cuban heels.
Anonymous said on 15/Aug/08
This listing seems right. 5-10 now, and easily 5-11 in youth and Beatles heyday(and with those heels/boots probably stood 6-0). In all the Beatles footage I've seen Paul looks the tallest. I'd say:
Paul 5-11 (nowadays 5-10)
John 5-10
George 5-10
Ringo 5-7
This listing seems right. 5-10 now, and easily 5-11 in youth and Beatles heyday(and with those heels/boots probably stood 6-0). In all the Beatles footage I've seen Paul looks the tallest. I'd say:
Paul 5-11 (nowadays 5-10)
John 5-10
George 5-10
Ringo 5-7
Frank2 said on 15/Aug/08
Paul is 5'10". I met him as well as all the Beatles back when the came to LA in 1964.
Paul is 5'10". I met him as well as all the Beatles back when the came to LA in 1964.
Caleb said on 15/Aug/08
This height is about right. I'm 6'1" or thereabouts, and was in the bar with him at the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts which he is patron of (nearly 10 years ago now). I couldn't get too close to him as he was surrounded by a huge throng of people, but he was a bit shorter than me, and a whole lot more orange than I would have expected! Actually, he looked quite tall, but then most of my fellow students were shorter than average trainee dancers and what have you!
This height is about right. I'm 6'1" or thereabouts, and was in the bar with him at the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts which he is patron of (nearly 10 years ago now). I couldn't get too close to him as he was surrounded by a huge throng of people, but he was a bit shorter than me, and a whole lot more orange than I would have expected! Actually, he looked quite tall, but then most of my fellow students were shorter than average trainee dancers and what have you!
Victor said on 25/Jul/08
Young: 181.5
Nowadays: 179
I don't want to say Old.
Young: 181.5
Nowadays: 179
I don't want to say Old.
Chris said on 6/Jun/08
this is the clip mcfan talked about, Paul lokks indeed 5.10., no more. Click Here
this is the clip mcfan talked about, Paul lokks indeed 5.10., no more. Click Here
glenn said on 31/May/08
mcfan-thats the only thing i disagree with mainly,is your paul heights.i met paul many times and he was no smaller than 5-11 and i believe he couldve been taller in youth.carson at 5-10 ill buy.
mcfan-thats the only thing i disagree with mainly,is your paul heights.i met paul many times and he was no smaller than 5-11 and i believe he couldve been taller in youth.carson at 5-10 ill buy.
mcfan said on 30/May/08
No, Carson was 5'10. He was probably only 5'9.5 in 84, but he could have been 5'10. I think Paul is still close to 5'10, but I don't think he was over that in his youth. At his age he's probably lost a half-inch but it's an individual thing. My uncle has lost 3 inches and is only 71. My father 66 years old is the same height as me -- 5'10 and we've both been the same height for the last 25 years.
No, Carson was 5'10. He was probably only 5'9.5 in 84, but he could have been 5'10. I think Paul is still close to 5'10, but I don't think he was over that in his youth. At his age he's probably lost a half-inch but it's an individual thing. My uncle has lost 3 inches and is only 71. My father 66 years old is the same height as me -- 5'10 and we've both been the same height for the last 25 years.
anonymous said on 30/May/08
we are getting closer to the truth here. paul is 5'9.
we are getting closer to the truth here. paul is 5'9.
glenn said on 29/May/08
adams i always pegged at 5-7,but could be 5-8.theres is no doubt that paul looks like he shrunk.but i truly think he was 5-11,5-11.5 in his youth.wasnt carson 5-10,5-11?
adams i always pegged at 5-7,but could be 5-8.theres is no doubt that paul looks like he shrunk.but i truly think he was 5-11,5-11.5 in his youth.wasnt carson 5-10,5-11?
mcfan said on 29/May/08
Yeah, and I think Adams sometimes wears Timberlands. I saw a clip from 1984 of 5'10 Johnny Carson and Paul McCartney. They looked like the same height with similar shoes. You can see it on youtube. I think it was when he was promoting Give My Regards to Broad Street.
Yeah, and I think Adams sometimes wears Timberlands. I saw a clip from 1984 of 5'10 Johnny Carson and Paul McCartney. They looked like the same height with similar shoes. You can see it on youtube. I think it was when he was promoting Give My Regards to Broad Street.
glenn said on 28/May/08
he is clearly leaning in.
he is clearly leaning in.
mcfan said on 6/May/08
D,
That was probably in his sneakers the 5'10.5 claim. It's just an estimate. May Pang said he was only 5'9.5 barefoot on Arsenio Hall. I think he was about 5'10 at the most during his peak. 5'11 in shoes for Lennon/McCartney during the Beatles. Tom Jones was taller than Lennon and McCartney yet Jones is listed here at 5'10.5 to McCartney's 5'11. That is clearly incorrect. I would say Jones was almost an inch taller than the both of them. Having said that, I think Jones was 5'11 in the 60s.
D,
That was probably in his sneakers the 5'10.5 claim. It's just an estimate. May Pang said he was only 5'9.5 barefoot on Arsenio Hall. I think he was about 5'10 at the most during his peak. 5'11 in shoes for Lennon/McCartney during the Beatles. Tom Jones was taller than Lennon and McCartney yet Jones is listed here at 5'10.5 to McCartney's 5'11. That is clearly incorrect. I would say Jones was almost an inch taller than the both of them. Having said that, I think Jones was 5'11 in the 60s.
anonymous said on 28/Apr/08
hi yoshi. i was just checking out the dave kushner page here when i saw an interesting link that someone had put up which has some great photos of dave kushner with lots of other musicians.
Click Here
have a look at the paul mccartney pic. there is a pic of glenn with dave kushner which provides a useful comparison. enjoy!
hi yoshi. i was just checking out the dave kushner page here when i saw an interesting link that someone had put up which has some great photos of dave kushner with lots of other musicians.
Click Here
have a look at the paul mccartney pic. there is a pic of glenn with dave kushner which provides a useful comparison. enjoy!
Anonymous said on 21/Apr/08
It is Japanese Yoshi.
As for the video and the photograph, it seems that it is more different between angle and far and near.
I watched McCartney near in Tokyo six years ago.
My height is 5 feet 9 inches
It is Japanese Yoshi.
As for the video and the photograph, it seems that it is more different between angle and far and near.
I watched McCartney near in Tokyo six years ago.
My height is 5 feet 9 inches
anonymous said on 15/Apr/08
smokin mojo filters was the name of the band. weller, mccartney and gallagher. check the video at 02.40
Click Here
smokin mojo filters was the name of the band. weller, mccartney and gallagher. check the video at 02.40
Click Here
mcfan said on 14/Apr/08
No, the photo is only slightly deceiving. Paul is in fact only about an inch and a half taller than Noel. There's a video out there of the two somewhere.
No, the photo is only slightly deceiving. Paul is in fact only about an inch and a half taller than Noel. There's a video out there of the two somewhere.
Chris said on 6/Apr/08
That is a bad angel, I
That is a bad angel, I
glenn said on 4/Feb/08
yoshi-konichiba.im always use a mobile phone for the site.continue to be here on the site.
yoshi-konichiba.im always use a mobile phone for the site.continue to be here on the site.
Anonymous said on 3/Feb/08
You're welcome.
Glenn, thank you.
When I access it from a mobile telephone with a Japanese, I become the anonymity.
When I access it from next, in a beginning of the comment, I give my name.
I am ,Yoshi in Japanese Kanagawa.
Thank you.
I am sorry in clumsy English.
Both Glenn and I really look in ,McCartney near.
The height of Paul McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 or 5 feet 11 inches.
According to the formal profile.
I am reliable!
Do its best from Glenn, this!
From far-off Japan, I enjoy it from now on.
Thank you
You're welcome.
Glenn, thank you.
When I access it from a mobile telephone with a Japanese, I become the anonymity.
When I access it from next, in a beginning of the comment, I give my name.
I am ,Yoshi in Japanese Kanagawa.
Thank you.
I am sorry in clumsy English.
Both Glenn and I really look in ,McCartney near.
The height of Paul McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 or 5 feet 11 inches.
According to the formal profile.
I am reliable!
Do its best from Glenn, this!
From far-off Japan, I enjoy it from now on.
Thank you
glenn said on 2/Feb/08
its not my site.robs site and listings.thank you for listening to me.
its not my site.robs site and listings.thank you for listening to me.
Anonymous said on 2/Feb/08
Thank you for Glenn, valuable testimony.
Then please correct the height of ,McCartney.
Why did you write it down with 5 feet 10 inches?
For the heyday, did you write it down with 5 feet 11 inches?
By shoes to wear, 2 inches are easily mixed up.
There are many such people who do not calculate.
Because McCartney wears flat shoes, there is it when I look slightly shorter than a person of the circumferences.
I encountered McCartney in 2002.
My height is 5 feet 9 inches 1/2.
McCartney was around 1 inch taller than me.
McCartney wore flat shoes.
The height of McCartney had 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 rank.
Around 1/2 inches increase by physical condition, and the human being shrinks.
The height of McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 or 5 feet 11 inches.
Glenn is right.
Glenn, thank you
Thank you for Glenn, valuable testimony.
Then please correct the height of ,McCartney.
Why did you write it down with 5 feet 10 inches?
For the heyday, did you write it down with 5 feet 11 inches?
By shoes to wear, 2 inches are easily mixed up.
There are many such people who do not calculate.
Because McCartney wears flat shoes, there is it when I look slightly shorter than a person of the circumferences.
I encountered McCartney in 2002.
My height is 5 feet 9 inches 1/2.
McCartney was around 1 inch taller than me.
McCartney wore flat shoes.
The height of McCartney had 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 rank.
Around 1/2 inches increase by physical condition, and the human being shrinks.
The height of McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 or 5 feet 11 inches.
Glenn is right.
Glenn, thank you
Anonymous said on 1/Feb/08
Thank you for Glenn, valuable testimony.
Then please correct the height of ,McCartney.
Why did you write it down with 5 feet 10 inches?
For the heyday, did you write it down with 5 feet 11 inches?
By shoes to wear, 2 inches are easily mixed up.
There are many such people who do not calculate.
Because McCartney wears flat shoes, there is it when I look slightly shorter than a person of the circumferences.
I encountered McCartney in 2002.
My height is 5 feet 9 inches 1/2.
McCartney was around 1 inch taller than me.
McCartney wore flat shoes.
The height of McCartney had 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 rank.
Around 1/2 inches increase by physical condition, and the human being shrinks.
The height of McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 or 5 feet 11 inches
Glenn is right.
Glenn, thank you
Thank you for Glenn, valuable testimony.
Then please correct the height of ,McCartney.
Why did you write it down with 5 feet 10 inches?
For the heyday, did you write it down with 5 feet 11 inches?
By shoes to wear, 2 inches are easily mixed up.
There are many such people who do not calculate.
Because McCartney wears flat shoes, there is it when I look slightly shorter than a person of the circumferences.
I encountered McCartney in 2002.
My height is 5 feet 9 inches 1/2.
McCartney was around 1 inch taller than me.
McCartney wore flat shoes.
The height of McCartney had 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 rank.
Around 1/2 inches increase by physical condition, and the human being shrinks.
The height of McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 or 5 feet 11 inches
Glenn is right.
Glenn, thank you
glenn said on 1/Feb/08
your not the losers im talking about anonymous.your 100 percent wrong.paul was 5-11 up until 2001 at least.thats the last time i saw him.from 1989 to 2001.
your not the losers im talking about anonymous.your 100 percent wrong.paul was 5-11 up until 2001 at least.thats the last time i saw him.from 1989 to 2001.
Anonymous said on 1/Feb/08
I have watched ,McCartney near.
The height of McCartney is reliable at 5 feet 9 inches 3/4(177cm) or 5 feet 10 inches(178cm).
As Glenn says.
But I felt the height of his now more briefly than 5 feet 11 inches(180cm).
I have watched ,McCartney near.
The height of McCartney is reliable at 5 feet 9 inches 3/4(177cm) or 5 feet 10 inches(178cm).
As Glenn says.
But I felt the height of his now more briefly than 5 feet 11 inches(180cm).
Anonymous said on 1/Feb/08
Its not like you Glenn to be rude over a difference of opinion. Especially considering the unfair abuse you sometimes get on here. You are normally a cool guy. Put that last one down to you having a bad day. I personally don't agree with you on this one. I consider Paul McCartney to be 5'9 as I live in Rye, Sussex and get to see him from time to time. The man is a genius! Who cares what height he is? Peace and love!
Its not like you Glenn to be rude over a difference of opinion. Especially considering the unfair abuse you sometimes get on here. You are normally a cool guy. Put that last one down to you having a bad day. I personally don't agree with you on this one. I consider Paul McCartney to be 5'9 as I live in Rye, Sussex and get to see him from time to time. The man is a genius! Who cares what height he is? Peace and love!
glenn said on 1/Feb/08
and some say mj is 5-10,5-11.theres is def a loser or 2 on this page.
and some say mj is 5-10,5-11.theres is def a loser or 2 on this page.
Anonymous said on 1/Feb/08
Because I am a Japanese, I'm sorry in clumsy English.
In 2002, I watched McCartney at distance nearby in a Hotel lobby of Japanese Tokyo.
My height is 5 feet 9 inches.
McCartney was 1 inch taller than me.
McCartney wore sneakers.
The height of McCartney is 5 feet 9 inches 3/4 (177cm) now.
I am a fan of ,McCartney.
However, I spoke an impression of McCartney which I watched honestly.
Because I am a Japanese, I'm sorry in clumsy English.
In 2002, I watched McCartney at distance nearby in a Hotel lobby of Japanese Tokyo.
My height is 5 feet 9 inches.
McCartney was 1 inch taller than me.
McCartney wore sneakers.
The height of McCartney is 5 feet 9 inches 3/4 (177cm) now.
I am a fan of ,McCartney.
However, I spoke an impression of McCartney which I watched honestly.
Anon said on 31/Jan/08
How can Paul be only 5-8/5-9 if he's taller than 5-9 Michael Jackson?!
Click Here
Click Here
Hmmm? ;)
Glenn's right!
How can Paul be only 5-8/5-9 if he's taller than 5-9 Michael Jackson?!
Click Here
Click Here
Hmmm? ;)
Glenn's right!
Chris said on 31/Jan/08
Paul looks 5'10'' on that video with Neil Young.
Paul looks 5'10'' on that video with Neil Young.
Anonymous said on 31/Jan/08
Completely wrong! You are giving all The Beatles heights when they are wearing their cuban heels. So take away 2-3 inches for all their actual heights. Check out this video of Paul playing with Neil Young who is 6'. There is a pic of Glenn with Neil Young on this site which should add some perspective. Paul is 5'8/5'9.
Click Here
Completely wrong! You are giving all The Beatles heights when they are wearing their cuban heels. So take away 2-3 inches for all their actual heights. Check out this video of Paul playing with Neil Young who is 6'. There is a pic of Glenn with Neil Young on this site which should add some perspective. Paul is 5'8/5'9.
Click Here
glenn said on 30/Jan/08
like i said many times.jagger is 5-10.mccartney is still 5-11.
like i said many times.jagger is 5-10.mccartney is still 5-11.
Anonymous said on 30/Jan/08
Paul McCartney&Mick Jagger came to the meeting place of Reunion Live of Led Zeppelin of December for admiration.
McCartney was about 1 inch taller than Jagger at time when two people lined up.
The height of McCartney becomes 5 feet 11 inches if the height of ,Jagger is 5 feet 10 inches.
On the contrary, the height of ,Jagger becomes 5 feet 9 inches if the height of ,McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches.
McCartney wore flat shoes.
Jagger has many rumors related to shoes, but I do not understand it.
Paul McCartney&Mick Jagger came to the meeting place of Reunion Live of Led Zeppelin of December for admiration.
McCartney was about 1 inch taller than Jagger at time when two people lined up.
The height of McCartney becomes 5 feet 11 inches if the height of ,Jagger is 5 feet 10 inches.
On the contrary, the height of ,Jagger becomes 5 feet 9 inches if the height of ,McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches.
McCartney wore flat shoes.
Jagger has many rumors related to shoes, but I do not understand it.
Anon said on 29/Jan/08
Anonymous, english is obviously not your first language and that's cool. But the reality is, people's heights do change due to various factors - health, age, diet, even the time of day! Consider that John Lennon was a pretty plump man around 1964, but then became an extremely thin one on a few years later, and remained that way all the way towards the end of his life. He was very self-conscious about his image and hated being fat, jealous of how Paul was "the pretty Beatle", etc... and went to great lengths in bringing down his weight, but that also brought down his height as well...the best most accurate bio on him "Lennon The Definitive Biography" by Ray Coleman, read it and this should be all clear, it explains his and Yoko's macrobiotic vegan diet, how he was living healthier towards the end of his life and so forth...
Anonymous, english is obviously not your first language and that's cool. But the reality is, people's heights do change due to various factors - health, age, diet, even the time of day! Consider that John Lennon was a pretty plump man around 1964, but then became an extremely thin one on a few years later, and remained that way all the way towards the end of his life. He was very self-conscious about his image and hated being fat, jealous of how Paul was "the pretty Beatle", etc... and went to great lengths in bringing down his weight, but that also brought down his height as well...the best most accurate bio on him "Lennon The Definitive Biography" by Ray Coleman, read it and this should be all clear, it explains his and Yoko's macrobiotic vegan diet, how he was living healthier towards the end of his life and so forth...
Anonymous said on 29/Jan/08
If it is a human being related to ,Beatles that Lennon is shorter than the formal profile, all are know.
Accept reality.
I am a ,McCartney fan.
However, I understand that the height of McCartney is slightly shorter than the formal profile.
I accept reality.
But such a thing does not matter.
Paul McCartney is greatest!
Of course John Lennon is greatest, too!
Actually
If it is a human being related to ,Beatles that Lennon is shorter than the formal profile, all are know.
Accept reality.
I am a ,McCartney fan.
However, I understand that the height of McCartney is slightly shorter than the formal profile.
I accept reality.
But such a thing does not matter.
Paul McCartney is greatest!
Of course John Lennon is greatest, too!
Actually
Anonymous said on 29/Jan/08
High-heeled shoes considerable as for boots of ,Lennon of before '66. Pete Best of previous drummer was said.
High-heeled shoes considerable as for boots of ,Lennon of before '66. Pete Best of previous drummer was said.
Anonymous said on 28/Jan/08
High-heeled shoes considerable as for boots of ,Lennon of before '66. Pete Best of previous drummer was said.
High-heeled shoes considerable as for boots of ,Lennon of before '66. Pete Best of previous drummer was said.
Chris said on 28/Jan/08
On this pic Lennon has more heel advantage and Paul
On this pic Lennon has more heel advantage and Paul
glenn said on 28/Jan/08
the crap i read on this page hasnt changed for 2 years or more.i see more heel advantage on lennon for one and the angle favors him.if this is the anon thats always on the site,forgive me.but the other guy or guys are unreal.mccartney was at least 5-11 in his prime.at least.with a small probabilty that lennon was 5-11 and macca 6ft ! cause george was 5-10 at least.not the 5-9 in saw him at.that was bad posture.i met macca many times.and he was always 5-11 with dress shoes.ringo i saw the other day and he was bigger than the 5-5 i always saw him at.maybe he was a hair under 5-7 in his prime.
the crap i read on this page hasnt changed for 2 years or more.i see more heel advantage on lennon for one and the angle favors him.if this is the anon thats always on the site,forgive me.but the other guy or guys are unreal.mccartney was at least 5-11 in his prime.at least.with a small probabilty that lennon was 5-11 and macca 6ft ! cause george was 5-10 at least.not the 5-9 in saw him at.that was bad posture.i met macca many times.and he was always 5-11 with dress shoes.ringo i saw the other day and he was bigger than the 5-5 i always saw him at.maybe he was a hair under 5-7 in his prime.
Anon said on 27/Jan/08
I have to disagree. During Beatlemania and before, young Lennon was at his peak height and was same height as McCartney:
Click Here
For the later years though, old Lennon shrunk substantially:
Click Here
Lennon often played guitar in a very "hunched" posture with very bowed legs, making him look shorter on stage..every REAL Beatles fan knows THIS! ;)
I have to disagree. During Beatlemania and before, young Lennon was at his peak height and was same height as McCartney:
Click Here
For the later years though, old Lennon shrunk substantially:
Click Here
Lennon often played guitar in a very "hunched" posture with very bowed legs, making him look shorter on stage..every REAL Beatles fan knows THIS! ;)
Anonymous said on 27/Jan/08
The height of Lennon&McCartney is not same.
Everybody of the BeatIes fan knows that Lennon is shorter than the formal profile.
Lennon
The height of Lennon&McCartney is not same.
Everybody of the BeatIes fan knows that Lennon is shorter than the formal profile.
Lennon
Anonymous said on 16/Jan/08
Paul McCartney was taIIer than Eric Clapton in a concert of Music Montserrat.Paul McCartney's height is 178cm, and Eric Clapton's height is 177cm.Paul McCartney does not wear the high-heeled shoes.There is time when he looks low because he always wears sneakers shoes.
Paul McCartney was taIIer than Eric Clapton in a concert of Music Montserrat.Paul McCartney's height is 178cm, and Eric Clapton's height is 177cm.Paul McCartney does not wear the high-heeled shoes.There is time when he looks low because he always wears sneakers shoes.
mcfan said on 14/Jan/08
You know, there's another video out there of the same film where John looks their heights...perhaps shot from a different angle on youtube. When he walks back at the end next to Richards he looks the same height, but Richards has a slight heel.
You know, there's another video out there of the same film where John looks their heights...perhaps shot from a different angle on youtube. When he walks back at the end next to Richards he looks the same height, but Richards has a slight heel.
Dries said on 14/Jan/08
If you watch the performance 'Yer Blues' by the Dirty Mac (1968), you can see that both Eric Clapton and Keith Richards (Keith possibly wearing high heel boots) are taller than John. John is of course taller than Yoko but not really towering over her. I estimate his real height was 1,74-1,75, being 5'8" 1/2. George Harrison was slightly taller than John. (by the way: I'm a big Lennon fan).
If you watch the performance 'Yer Blues' by the Dirty Mac (1968), you can see that both Eric Clapton and Keith Richards (Keith possibly wearing high heel boots) are taller than John. John is of course taller than Yoko but not really towering over her. I estimate his real height was 1,74-1,75, being 5'8" 1/2. George Harrison was slightly taller than John. (by the way: I'm a big Lennon fan).
mister Lennon said on 12/Jan/08
John was always taller than George and almost the same than Paul.
John was always taller than George and almost the same than Paul.
Dries said on 12/Jan/08
Paul was the tallest Beatles, about 5'10" 1/2 in his prime. George was 5'10", John 5'9"ish (possibly a bit shorter), Ringo not taller than 5'7". Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton aren't certainly taller than Paul. Jagger has always been height conscious and was known to wear high heels.
Paul was the tallest Beatles, about 5'10" 1/2 in his prime. George was 5'10", John 5'9"ish (possibly a bit shorter), Ringo not taller than 5'7". Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton aren't certainly taller than Paul. Jagger has always been height conscious and was known to wear high heels.
Rut said on 28/Dec/07
Coming back on the document a few years back..
It did list with high heels six foot..if they were referring to with Cuban (2 inch) heels, then yes..Macca could have been under five eleven.
I still buy 5'11 however, case closed.
Coming back on the document a few years back..
It did list with high heels six foot..if they were referring to with Cuban (2 inch) heels, then yes..Macca could have been under five eleven.
I still buy 5'11 however, case closed.
Bri said on 11/Nov/07
I used to believe that George, John and Paul were all 5'11, but I can see now that George must have been a good inch or so shorter. If you watch The Rutles, George stands next to Michael Palin in one scene. Michael's height back then has been given as 5'11, but I'd say it was more like 5'10. George was a little shorter than Palin in that scene, (also much smaller) so he was probably 5'9-5'9 and a half. That would put Paul in at about 5'11, since he was quite a bit taller than George. Just watch the "I am the Walrus" clip in The Magical Mystery Tour. George is wearing heels and Paul is barefooted. Side by side, Paul is still over an inch taller than him. Plus, Paul is standing with his legs far apart.
He does look like he has gotten quite a bit shorter over the years though. He's probably under 5'10 nowadays. But as a young man, he was big and strapping and easily over 5'10.
As for John, May Pang said he was 5'11 and he did look like a good sized guy. If you ask me, he was a sold 5'10 in his youth.
(And all of this is coming from a huge Beatles freak so I know what I'm talking about!)
I used to believe that George, John and Paul were all 5'11, but I can see now that George must have been a good inch or so shorter. If you watch The Rutles, George stands next to Michael Palin in one scene. Michael's height back then has been given as 5'11, but I'd say it was more like 5'10. George was a little shorter than Palin in that scene, (also much smaller) so he was probably 5'9-5'9 and a half. That would put Paul in at about 5'11, since he was quite a bit taller than George. Just watch the "I am the Walrus" clip in The Magical Mystery Tour. George is wearing heels and Paul is barefooted. Side by side, Paul is still over an inch taller than him. Plus, Paul is standing with his legs far apart.
He does look like he has gotten quite a bit shorter over the years though. He's probably under 5'10 nowadays. But as a young man, he was big and strapping and easily over 5'10.
As for John, May Pang said he was 5'11 and he did look like a good sized guy. If you ask me, he was a sold 5'10 in his youth.
(And all of this is coming from a huge Beatles freak so I know what I'm talking about!)
Russ said on 27/Sep/07
I work with a guy who used to be work as a "parking lot valet" in Los Angeles back in the 80's. He once opened the car door for George Harrison and then parked George's car. He said that George was about 5'9". He knew this because he stood right next to George. So with that in mind, I'd have to say that McCartney is (was) maybe 5'10". Perhaps 5'10 &1/2 in his younger days. If you watch "A Hard Day's Night", you can see that none of the Beatles appear to be tall, especially when they are in a crowd.
I work with a guy who used to be work as a "parking lot valet" in Los Angeles back in the 80's. He once opened the car door for George Harrison and then parked George's car. He said that George was about 5'9". He knew this because he stood right next to George. So with that in mind, I'd have to say that McCartney is (was) maybe 5'10". Perhaps 5'10 &1/2 in his younger days. If you watch "A Hard Day's Night", you can see that none of the Beatles appear to be tall, especially when they are in a crowd.
AD said on 17/Aug/07
Ok Julie.. in which case I may have been measured wrongly at the time..I'm pretty sure I was no more than 5'9" at the time and we were dead level on the photo...but this is going back 20 years so I'm not going to swear blind that I'm 100% right!
The other entry on here that made me also think that though is the from the guy who works at his office who says Macca is 5'9...so I understand what you're saying but it looks like it's a bit of a mystery that some of us have met him and think he's about this height, and some... like you, meet him and think he's more like 5'11"...it's very hard to say.
Ok Julie.. in which case I may have been measured wrongly at the time..I'm pretty sure I was no more than 5'9" at the time and we were dead level on the photo...but this is going back 20 years so I'm not going to swear blind that I'm 100% right!
The other entry on here that made me also think that though is the from the guy who works at his office who says Macca is 5'9...so I understand what you're saying but it looks like it's a bit of a mystery that some of us have met him and think he's about this height, and some... like you, meet him and think he's more like 5'11"...it's very hard to say.
Julie said on 16/Aug/07
AD -
Not to refute what you're saying, but I met Paul in June of '01 and he stood right next to me as he signed an autograph and we chatted. I was wearing sandals (which would have made me 5'6.5" at the very most) and he was considerably taller than me (taller than 5'9" that's for sure). He was wearing black loafer type shoes and I can say with a lot of confidence that he's around 5'11"...definitely not 5'9" though.
AD -
Not to refute what you're saying, but I met Paul in June of '01 and he stood right next to me as he signed an autograph and we chatted. I was wearing sandals (which would have made me 5'6.5" at the very most) and he was considerably taller than me (taller than 5'9" that's for sure). He was wearing black loafer type shoes and I can say with a lot of confidence that he's around 5'11"...definitely not 5'9" though.
AD said on 16/Aug/07
The reason I'm convinced he's no more than 5'9.5 is ....that by my 16th birthday I was measured at exactly 5'9" barefoot and it was around this time that I met Paul at the BBC and had a photo taken with him (I wish I still had it). I was wearing shoes with about a standard 1 inch heel... he was wearing flat pumps (those deck shoes that were popular in the mid 80s) which are about half an inch. The photo was taken on a studio floor, even surface, and we came out on the photo as dead level in height. As Macca's shoes were half an inch less than mine, this would make him 5'9.5 ....he was in his early forties so I very much doubt he was ever any taller than that. 5'11" in his Beatle boots.
The reason I'm convinced he's no more than 5'9.5 is ....that by my 16th birthday I was measured at exactly 5'9" barefoot and it was around this time that I met Paul at the BBC and had a photo taken with him (I wish I still had it). I was wearing shoes with about a standard 1 inch heel... he was wearing flat pumps (those deck shoes that were popular in the mid 80s) which are about half an inch. The photo was taken on a studio floor, even surface, and we came out on the photo as dead level in height. As Macca's shoes were half an inch less than mine, this would make him 5'9.5 ....he was in his early forties so I very much doubt he was ever any taller than that. 5'11" in his Beatle boots.
glenn said on 7/Aug/07
exactly julie.
exactly julie.
Julie said on 6/Aug/07
I met Paul in 2001 and I would put his height at around 5'11" I'm 5'6" and he was about 5 inches taller than me.
I met Paul in 2001 and I would put his height at around 5'11" I'm 5'6" and he was about 5 inches taller than me.
AD said on 26/Jul/07
When I met him, from a distance he looked much taller as he has an athletic build, his shoulders are quite high and broad. As I actually faced him I realised that he was around 5'9.5 but his build definately made him appear a little taller.
When I met him, from a distance he looked much taller as he has an athletic build, his shoulders are quite high and broad. As I actually faced him I realised that he was around 5'9.5 but his build definately made him appear a little taller.
Marc said on 26/Jul/07
At the risk of getting sacked I work for him at MPL hes 5'9'
At the risk of getting sacked I work for him at MPL hes 5'9'
glenn said on 25/Jul/07
lots of bull on this page.
lots of bull on this page.
mcfan said on 24/Jul/07
Mhouillon, he was shorter than Tom Jones even in the 60s. Why he is listed as 5'11 in his prime and Jones as 5'10.5 doesn't make sense. Even Jagger had a slight hair on McCartney so did Clapton.
Mhouillon, he was shorter than Tom Jones even in the 60s. Why he is listed as 5'11 in his prime and Jones as 5'10.5 doesn't make sense. Even Jagger had a slight hair on McCartney so did Clapton.
AD said on 20/Jul/07
I saw a documentary on the Beatles the other day, when you see footage of John, Paul & George walking amongst other people, they looked very average in height. I'd actually give all 3 of them 177cm with the 5'11" listing coming from being measured with their Beatle boots on.
I really don't think that Macca was EVER this 'peak' height of 5'11" as listed above.... he was definately 5'9.5" when I met him in his early forties, and it's doubtful he would have been any taller when he was in his twenties.
I saw a documentary on the Beatles the other day, when you see footage of John, Paul & George walking amongst other people, they looked very average in height. I'd actually give all 3 of them 177cm with the 5'11" listing coming from being measured with their Beatle boots on.
I really don't think that Macca was EVER this 'peak' height of 5'11" as listed above.... he was definately 5'9.5" when I met him in his early forties, and it's doubtful he would have been any taller when he was in his twenties.
MHouillon said on 4/Jul/07
I said it previously and I say it once more: 179cm (5'10.5") youth height (pushed via kinky british 60's Star-Trek-high-heel-boots), and 176-177cm (5'9.25-5'9.5) today-height.
Was shorter than 177-178cm (5'9.5-5'10) Tom Jones during the Linda McCartney tribute-concert.
I said it previously and I say it once more: 179cm (5'10.5") youth height (pushed via kinky british 60's Star-Trek-high-heel-boots), and 176-177cm (5'9.25-5'9.5) today-height.
Was shorter than 177-178cm (5'9.5-5'10) Tom Jones during the Linda McCartney tribute-concert.
mcfan said on 1/Jul/07
Paul looked 3 possibly 4 inches taller than Ringo.
Paul looked 3 possibly 4 inches taller than Ringo.
Anonymous said on 28/Jun/07
What? If you look at this clip you see that Paul looks quit tall, taller than Ringo. Click Here
What? If you look at this clip you see that Paul looks quit tall, taller than Ringo. Click Here
Hmm said on 28/Jun/07
In the paper today Paul and Ringo (with Yoko and George's wife) unveiled a tribute to George and John. The four were standing side by side and Ringo looked 1.5-2 inches taller than Paul. The footing is uncertain but I wouldn't put it past Ringo that he was wearing huge heels.
In the paper today Paul and Ringo (with Yoko and George's wife) unveiled a tribute to George and John. The four were standing side by side and Ringo looked 1.5-2 inches taller than Paul. The footing is uncertain but I wouldn't put it past Ringo that he was wearing huge heels.
Chris said on 10/Jun/07
Irua- Yoko Ono is at least 5'2''- 5'3''. I have met her. She wore big heels though, and looked almost 5'6''. I´d say about 5'3'' barefoot. 5'11'' for Paul back in the days. John looked sometimes tall, but he wore boots a lot of times. My guess is 5'10''. When he was on Dick Cavett show he towerd over Cavett. Cavett is no more than 5'5'' and John looked 5'11''-6ft.
Irua- Yoko Ono is at least 5'2''- 5'3''. I have met her. She wore big heels though, and looked almost 5'6''. I´d say about 5'3'' barefoot. 5'11'' for Paul back in the days. John looked sometimes tall, but he wore boots a lot of times. My guess is 5'10''. When he was on Dick Cavett show he towerd over Cavett. Cavett is no more than 5'5'' and John looked 5'11''-6ft.
glenn said on 10/Jun/07
he is very mean and nasty as of the last 6 years.but pulls surprises by signing once in a blue.never poses in those years either.i have one with me, paul and linda.not good to judge height.and lost.
he is very mean and nasty as of the last 6 years.but pulls surprises by signing once in a blue.never poses in those years either.i have one with me, paul and linda.not good to judge height.and lost.
Anthony said on 9/Jun/07
Paul looks at least 5'10 if he were to straighten up. He's supposed to be doing a secret show in NYC Wednesday. Maybe Glenn can get him.
Paul looks at least 5'10 if he were to straighten up. He's supposed to be doing a secret show in NYC Wednesday. Maybe Glenn can get him.
glenn said on 9/Jun/07
he is slouching in that pic.he was at 5-11 in his prime.i met him many times.
he is slouching in that pic.he was at 5-11 in his prime.i met him many times.
lrua said on 5/Jun/07
Paul McCartney was never 5'11", I used to believe what was listed in all the books on the Beatles and I wondered why 6'2" Mal Evans (their roadie) looked 6'5" , and why in the famous Feb '64 pictures with Cassius Clay (Ali) the Beatles looked tiny, and why 5'10" Mick Jagger looked taller than McCartney, well it's because Paul McCartney was 5'9 and half" back then now looking 5'9" at most, he was the tallest Beatle (slightly) , John Lennon and George were both approx 5'9" , keep in mind Yoko is 5'1" at most , and Ringo 5'6" to 5'7" at most.
Paul McCartney was never 5'11", I used to believe what was listed in all the books on the Beatles and I wondered why 6'2" Mal Evans (their roadie) looked 6'5" , and why in the famous Feb '64 pictures with Cassius Clay (Ali) the Beatles looked tiny, and why 5'10" Mick Jagger looked taller than McCartney, well it's because Paul McCartney was 5'9 and half" back then now looking 5'9" at most, he was the tallest Beatle (slightly) , John Lennon and George were both approx 5'9" , keep in mind Yoko is 5'1" at most , and Ringo 5'6" to 5'7" at most.
Anthony said on 25/May/07
I've seen quite a lot of recent photos of Paul in converse, and he looks 5'10 in them. He also looks 5'10 in his new music video.
I've seen quite a lot of recent photos of Paul in converse, and he looks 5'10 in them. He also looks 5'10 in his new music video.
Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.
Other vital statistics like weight or shoe size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.
Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.