John Lennon Height

mcfan says on 23/Aug/10
Christian, there's good reason why John was measured at 178 cm. That is because that's all he and Paul ever were. Paul did look taller than John 80% of the time, but John rarely stood up straight. Proof that they were the same height was established in The Music of Lennon & McCartney and Your Mother Should Know video. McCartney's recent comment solidifies what I've always claimed that they were the same height. If Paul were slightly taller than John he sure would quickly have pointed that out.

mcfan says on 6/Jun/10
I believe Frank2 said John and George were 5'9 then later said John was a weak 5'10 and George was around 5'9. I agree with the latter comment. He called Paul a strong 5'10. Let's say you have two people 5'10 with one a sloucher and the other with good posture, you would probably make a similar comment or might even have one less than 5'10. If we've proven Lennon and McCartney were 5'10 tops then there's simply no way Harrison was 5'10. That photo below from my June 1st posting was one of two and Harrison looked an inch shorter than Lennon, but Lennon was wearing 1-inch loafers and probably had a half-inch advantage over George.

mcfan says on 1/Jun/10
Anon, the live at the BBC cover is a poor example. There is no way to judge the Beatles' heights midstride as it can make someone appear much shorter than they are. I would certainly consider this a better picture as Lennon and McCartney:

or Harrison/Lennon:

These cannot be used for height comparisons as they are deceptive by the camera's angles:

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Look at how Paul is standing vs John's stance. John is doing his typical lean while Paul keeps his shoulders firmly back but only tilts his head downward giving him a false impression of being about an inch taller than John.

Anon says on 30/May/10
Lennon was 5'10", McCartney was 5'10.5", Harrsion was 5'9.75" and Ringo was 5'6.5" maybe 5'7" at the very most.

Not the greatest photo to judge from I know, but the Live at the BBC cover shows McCartney as the tallest with Lennon slightly leaning forward, but even if he stood straight he'd still be 0.5in smaller and closer in height to Harrison... Ringo is maybe 3in smaller.

Kirby says on 8/May/10
I think thje best evidence that John, Paul, and George are virtually the same height is the MMT "Your Mother Should Know" sequence. (which many people have already shown as evidence) They are all wearing identical shoes, and John and George are finally not slouching, something both did a lot, especially John. Paul was always in good posture. I think they were all 5'11"

Jeff says on 12/Apr/10
I also want to point out that the time my aunt actually "met" John was in 1972. She continued to see him until about 1977 when her job moved her out of the upper west side and down to times square. it may be irrelevant as everyone can lie on the internet, but to me this is all fact. my aunt is still reflects about how kindly he said hello.

Jeff says on 12/Apr/10
I think again it all falls down to a matter of opinion and personal fact.(haha) But my aunt still stands by her own opinion that he was not 5 feet 10 and that he was about my height. We tend to want those who appear strong and massive in our lives to be tall and strapping but for him I truly believe this wasnt the case...and no offense PADOUR... he is no where near 5 feet ten and a half. not close. I am 5"9 and can pull off a 30x32 pair of pants by rolling the leg an inch. Lennon wore a 30x30, and I dont remember him having slacks like Michael Jackson.

I measure 5'9 3/4. I wear a 30x30 with a true inseam. All legs are longer or shorter, but I am very skinny and I weigh about 151 pounds, and Lennon really looks about my size. At his proclaimed height here even at 159 he would of looked like he did in the 80s. SICK.

Christian says on 30/Mar/10
Jeff thats is cool that your mother met John Lennon. John didn´t have a great posture and in the 70:s he became older, he was quite worn out. Especially from 1976-1980. If you look at photographes you can clearly see that. I´d say he was 5'10'' but could very well have only been 5'9'' last three or four years. This is from a John Lennon Memoir.

"Without any notice, like trumpets or an announcement or something, John stepped into the room, followed by Yoko. I looked at him with his long hair and round glasses and impeccable white pants and shirt and all I could think was, "He's not tall. He's very thin and not tall".

Some pic of the older John.

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here

mcfan says on 26/Mar/10
Jeff, yeah I agree. Frank2 initially put John & Geo at 5'9 but later said in another post John was a weak 5'10 and George around 5'9.

Yeah, some doctor height/scales are sometimes set too low or too high. Most of the time you come out lower. This is because they sometimes set it an inch lower to account for shoes so you don't have to take them off. This is a common practice.

Jeff says on 24/Mar/10
Mcfan, I think what I was saying was in a way supporting what you are saying. I did not say anything about a comparison to Paul's height. I said "she said he was about my height which surprised her. and that he was very proportional. I stand at about 5'9." A man my height in Clarks desert boots can come across as 5"10 very easily, come across being the important word. The one problem with this site is that people use other celebs as a control. And when you search this site the controls people use are just as easily debated! Eh on May Pang and Yoko. I have measured myself at home and came across taller than at the doctors. Yoko is also no where near 5'2, seen here in the city and I thought it was a kid with alot of grown up friends. Frank2 also stated "Paul was about 5'10". Ringo was short. Maybe 5'7". John and George looked to be about 5'9"." I also find it strange that a pair of Lennons slacks at the hall of fame measured a 30 inseam. His jacket also looked very small.

It would be very interesting to compare the size of Pauls hofner with him. It might reveal some things here.

mcfan says on 23/Mar/10
Jeff, there's been magazines mentioning Paul at around 5'9 as well even going back to the 80s. I still say the three ranged a minimum of 5'9.5 - 5'10 tops. May Pang did say John was 5'9.5 on either Geraldo Rivera's show in the late 80s or Arsenio's show. Yoko stated John was 5'10. Frank2 stated John was 5'10 and Paul a strong 5'10. The video evidence I supplied from "Your Mother Should Know" video and this March 17 entry below proves they were the same height. My friend stated Paul was not as tall as his height of 5'10 in the late 90s and guessed him at about 5'9. He was only 10 feet away. Paul was Johnny Carson's height in 1984 (5'9.5 - 5'10)video. Paul was also 1.5 inches shorter than Jay Leno. Tom Jones was always an inch taller than Paul (1966 and The Concert For Linda). Stevie Wonder was 2 inches taller than Paul back in 1982. Michael Jackson looked 1 inch shorter than Paul.

Jeff says on 22/Mar/10
My family is from NYC, and in the 70s my Aunt was walking back to work after lunch when down the street towards her came John Lennon. As a teenager she was a huge Beatles fan, and had even been present when they landed at JFK in 1964. She did not want to bother him as he walked by but said hello and to her surprise and he smiled and said hello back! A simple gesture but It still makes her smile to this day. She said he had light brown hair with a reddish tint and was very skinny and had a great smile but the one detail of interest to the site here is that she said he was about my height which surprised her. and that he was very proportional. I stand at about 5'9.

mcfan says on 17/Mar/10
normalheightdude: check out this video and the shoes of Lennon/Mccartney. Go to around 5:11 into it and watch them side by side on an even surface. So I ask: how is it that McCartney is listed as 5'11 and John 5'10 when they're virtually the same height with similar footwear? You would certainly be able to spot it if John or Paul was an inch taller than one another. They're both regular shoes and I think Lennon is every bit Macca's height again:

Click Here

There is much more of a case to say Harrison was shorter than J & P, but again, by about a half-inch.

mcfan says on 17/Mar/10
Actually I think John looks taller than Paul in that video marginally. He never lifts his head like Paul always does. I don't see much of a difference,if any, in their heels. It does look like a sort of small boot on Lennon, but it doesn't look like the thick-heeled Cubans from A Hard Day's Night. There are actually several photos where Paul looks taller than John by .5 - 1.0 inch, but John slouches. I completely agree John was not more than 5'10, but Paul neither was Paul.

normalheightdude says on 16/Mar/10
mcfan in that video the reason John looks every bit Paul's height is because Paul isn't wearing cubans but John is. John was never more than 5'10". There's a BBC show from '65 or '66 where John and Paul are both wearing dress shoes and standing side by side Paul is clearly 1" taller than John.

Dylan says on 1/Mar/10
Interesting mcfan and I agree with you, there is no difference in their heights, in fact that clip is good evidence that John, Paul and George could all have been the same height of 5'11" they were listed in the sixties. I don't think there was much difference if any in their heights.

GregR says on 13/Feb/10
Yes they were ultra skinny in the early days. Assuming they were around 5'10 (except Ringo of course) and weighed around 150lbs, it would make them very thin. I'm not saying they were skin and bones thin, but they wre very thin. Just look at the photos. They were very thin - - almost no fat on their bodies. But people were thin back then. Now, the average 5'10 guy weighs 200lbs if not more. I know because that's my height and weight and I'm not fat. In my book, any guy of weighs around 150lbs is very thin (in my vocab ultra thin).

Dylan says on 22/Jan/10
Mcfan - Jones may well have been listed as 5'7" in some of them but I do recall at least one whereby he was listed as 5'9". Also when the Stones started out in a music magazine back in 1964. Jagger, Richards and Jones were listed as being 19 years old and Watts and Wyman 21 years old, when in actual fact, Jagger and Richards were 20, Watts was 23 and Wyman was 27 years old. I read later in a biography of the Stones that they were told to pretend they were younger because of the teenage fan base. This emphasises my point that not everything you read was true. It was rare for even the shortest male pop stars to be listed below 5'8". I think I recall Ringo stating that he was 5'6.5" and never 5'8" another fabrication. I also recall in the group the Animals. Chas Chandler was listed as 6'4", Hilton Valentine 5'10" and Eric Burdon, Alan Price and John Steele all 5'8". Whilst Chandler and Valentine's heights seemed plausable. Price and Steele were at least an inch taller than Burdon, who was really short, yet they were all listed the same.

mcfan says on 21/Jan/10
Dylan, wasn't Brian Jones always listed as 5'7 in magazines?

Paul is almost always standing up perfectly straight or closer to the camera then the other two. Here John and him are in stride but here is another example of giving the illusion of one looking deceptively taller than the other:

Click Here

Dylan says on 20/Jan/10
Migsly - I lived through the Beatles Era too and I know John, Paul and George were listed as 5'11" and that Ringo was listed as 5'8" so does everyone else on here as far as I know, however, that doesn't necessarily mean it was their true heights. For a start more recent evidence suggests that Ringo was around 5'6.5" to 5'7" and Frank2 who posts on here and is a good judge of heights and happens to be 5'11" himself claims that none of them were as tall as him. Also the majority of posters who have seen them claim that Paul had a slight height advantage and that George was slightly shorter than John and Paul. I cannot say how tall any of them were for sure because I have never seen them up close, however, I do know that in the sixties, heights of pop stars did tend to be inflated, for example Brian Jones and Bill Wyman of the Stones were listed as 5'9" but it has been pretty well established that they were both around 5'6" therefore I wouldn't take the heights given for the Beatles at that time as gospel either.

migsly says on 13/Jan/10
Take it from me. John, Paul and George were 5'11" and Ringo was 5'8".

I lived through the Beatle years and know.

Now, I notice on these recent TV movies, like the one of John and Paul (I can't remember the title) they made Paul look like a giant next to John. That's stupid.

Kent says on 11/Jan/10
Dylan - 5'11 may be right. All I can say is that from the photographs, John and Paul were very close. George appears to have been a hair shorter. I remember seeing McCartney sitting with Terry Bradshaw and another announcer during a Superbowl one year. Being seated on stools their heights appeared similar. But what struck me was McCartney's frame was so much smaller. His head was smaller and his shoulders narrower. He looked like a little kid. I guess that's what happens when you are sitting next to ex-football players.

Brad - If you are talking about Badfinger, it was Pete Ham who was listed as 5'10. Joey Molland definitely was a few inches shorter than that.

Brad says on 10/Jan/10
He's 5 feet 10, as listed, right in my face. Slight build so appeared even smaller. Tom Evans was very short, I thought he was a kid roadie around when he died as he came in the NYC club with guitars and a bag, I guess he was his own roadie!. Badfinger was looted by a corrupt manager.

Dylan says on 9/Jan/10
Kent - In the sixties John Lennon was listed as 5'11" as were Paul and George. I never saw any reason to doubt that and after reading numerous books on the Beatles and both of his main biographies, they all say he was 5'11". When interviewed he claimed to be 5'11" and I believe he was that height on his passport. In the last biography I read, they even stated he was 5'11" at the time of his death. His height has never been an issue with me, it was only when I noticed on here that several people who met John, Paul and George, felt that they were shorter that I began to wonder. Alot of people say Paul was slightly taller and I have looked at numerous photos of the two together and I have to say they looked the same size to me, then again although I have been a huge fan all of my life I have never had the pleasure of meeting any of them close up.

Kent says on 8/Jan/10
Dylan - Molland is in his sixties now (when next to Leslie West) and has probably shrunk a bit. My estimate of him being 5'7 was when he was in his thirties.

Getting back to Lennon, I watched a Beatle bio recently and noticed a few things that give him the appearance of greater height. The first is his towering height above the petite Yoko Ono, whom he always seemed to be photographed with in later years. He also seemed to slouch much more when he was with her, probably unconsciously trying to be closer to eye level with her. A slouching posture is something I see more often in tall men, be it from back problems or unconsciously trying to get closer in height to others. And Lennon's thinner frame in later years gave him a longer, lankier appearance that is generally associated with tall men. I believe the combination of all of these give Lennon the impression of being greater than 6'0 in height. It is only when others of known height are in the frame with him does this impression fade.

Dylan says on 7/Jan/10
Kent - I just saw a picture of Joey Molland with Leslie West. I have no idea how tall West is but he toweres over Molland. Badfinger were a great band and Pete Ham and Tom Evans were a great song-writing duo, apart from the numerous songs they wrote for Badfinger they also wrote "Can't Live If Living Is Without You" for Harry Neilson, more recently recorded by Mariah Carey. Pete Ham was a great guitarist too, it was a tragedy that he hanged himself at the age of 27. Jimi Hendrix, Brian Jones, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Robert Johnson are just a few talented musicians to die at 27, I think it must have been an unlucky age. The sad twist with Bad Finger was that the other great songwriter Tom Evans also hanged himself later after an arguement with Molland, finally Mike Gibbins died leaving Molland as the soul survivor of the band. I get quite upset when stars die, I was in shock over John Lennon for weeks and I still get quite emotional when I listen to the songs he wrote.

Kent says on 5/Jan/10
Dylan - I may be wrong about Evans' height. My assumption is based on photographs. Gibbins was a small guy. He died from a brain aneurysm, and I remember reading somewhere that smaller individuals are more susceptible to aneurysms and strokes because the small blood vessels in the brain are reduced even further (and susceptible to blockage) when the individual is generally small.

McFan - Two members of Badfinger were Welsh and two were Liverpudlian.

mcfan says on 4/Jan/10
Well, who said anything about the UK? I said England. I'm not including Ireland, Scotland, and Wales in that who are shorter. The Dutch followed by the Norwegians are the tallest in Europe. After that, it is the rest of the Scandanavians, English, Northern Germans that follow and the average of the English male surpasses that of the average American.

mcfan says on 1/Jan/10
Kent, the English are actually in the tall-average range of Europeans. I've known some short ones as well. The Welsh, Irish, and Scottish are shorter on average. Only Scandanavians and the Dutch are taller in Europe. Who knows why? I read where the Dutch are now the tallest currently, but were once considered the shortest in Europe during colonial times.

Dylan says on 31/Dec/09
Kent - I didn't realise Mike Gibbins was that short, perhaps because he was always seated on the drums. I always thought Joey Molland was quite tall, so appearances must be deceiving, when he and Tom Evans were sharing a microphone for the backing vocals when Pete Ham sang the lead on "No Matter What", Molland seemed to tower over Evans. I would think if Molland were 5'7" Evans must have only been about 5'4"

Kent says on 31/Dec/09
Dylan - I met both Joey Molland and Mike Gibbins. I'd say Molland was 5'7 at most, and Tom Evans seemed to be of equal height with him in photographs. Gibbins was shorter - maybe even 5'5. Funny, Gibbins was yelling at me and wanted to get in my face but he had to look way up at me (and I'm only 5'10). Someone earlier mentioned that the English aren't exactly the tallest people in the world. I suspect that is an accurate assessment.

Kent says on 29/Dec/09
I am satisfied that Paul and John were nearly the same height. At times one will appear slightly taller than the other but the sublties of posture will keep it a mystery.

I never met any Beatles but I met two members of their protege' band, "Badfinger." Now those guys were SHORT. Their manager referred to the guitarist as "the tall one" but he was only 5'10. The rest were around 5'6.

vacuum92jol says on 26/Dec/09
The best pictures to compare Beatles heights are in the end of magical mystery tour film, where everyone of them has similar suits and shoes. And there they all stand in line,with straight backs. John and Paul are almost precisely the same height. George slightly shorter. Paul 5'10.8" John 5'10.4" George 5'10.1". None of them are either 5'11" or under 5'9.7", barefoots. That's a fact.

I read on they\'re collectable cards says on 21/Dec/09
John, Paul and George were all 5' 11" and Ringo was 5' 8". Some pictures make one or another seem taller or shorter than another. Keep in mind the postures, foot-wear angle of a picture. Remember, there are alot of books which confirm this !!!

Dylan says on 14/Dec/09
Beatsman 242 - Although the majority of us posters love the Beatles, this is not a Beatles, John Lennon or Paul McCarney fan site. For the last time, it is a CELEBRITY HEIGHT SITE, and in case you did not realise, each of the Beatles come under the category of celebs and therefore we are discussing their heights on here. We know they were and are talented musicians and song-writers but that is not what this site is all about, it is a CELEB HEIGHT SITE. Now is that too complicated for you to understand? Now I have a question for you, if you think discussing heights is so unnecessary, then what are you doing on here? Go to a fan site or somewhere that interests you and leave us to our debate.

mcfan says on 10/Dec/09
That depends on when. Lennon was the biggest at 159 lbs in 1963 and got heavier than that a couple of years later. Paul and George were listed as 140 lbs. Lennon stated that George and him both lost 15 lbs in India in 1968. My impression was John was the only one ultra skinny before his death.

Dylan says on 1/Dec/09
McFan - Good point. If I am to be totally honest, I never ever noticed any difference in heights between John, Paul and George, although that is not to say that there wasn't a height difference. The general sense of opinion on here is that Paul was slightly taller than the others. I think on John's passport he was 5'11" but I am not sure whether they used to actully measure you for a passport or just accept your word for it, nowadays of course, your height does not appear on a passport. Christian - I found your post quite interesting as I would have liked to have read May Pang's book myself. Like I said, I had always accepted that John was 5'11" until people who had actually met him disputed the fact. Another thing which I find interesting is the picture you posted with John and Yoko, I agree there is quite a height difference, however, you say that Yoko was 5'2" whereas in the book I am reading her height is stated as being barely over 5ft. I am not saying you are wrong, just that different books register different heights for the same artistes.

mcfan says on 30/Nov/09
Dylan, here is the problem with Macca being 5'10. I vividly remember Tom Jones being an inch taller than him, which photos show but there was a film of that. Johnny Carson was 5'10 and was his exact height. I don't see a difference in J & P but most see Paul as being taller than John only when John slouches or lerches forward. Even Frank2 described John as 5'10 and Paul as a strong 5'10. George appeared to him more in the 5'9 range. In Imagine outtakes John appears slightly taller than George in 1971. One thing that I think is very self-evident is when it comes to a person's height, and I don't think is mentioned that often, is that when a person with high shoulders and a small neck (Macca) stands next to someone his height (Lennon), the person with the higher shoulders appears, due to illusion, taller. Another celeb like Lennon is Tobey Maguire, with the long neck and low shoulders...giving the mistaken illusion of being shorter. I once worked with a guy 5'11 that, when I stood next to him, he appeared taller to my eye. Whenever our photo was taken, I appeared taller to others because I didn't have a long neck and his shoulders were lower than mine. If you see photos like this, pay close attention, it will create an illusion.

Christian says on 30/Nov/09
I written this before here, but I have a book called "Loving John" written by May Pang. It is about their relationship in LA 1973-74, a special period called "The Lost Weekend". John drank like a pig and was kicked out of diffirent nightclubs, he spent a lot of time hanging out with Ringo, Harry Nilsson and Mick Jagger, Bowie etc. However May and John talked about Johns weightproblem back in 1977, they continued to be lovers 3 years after John and Yoko got back togehter. During there discussion May said ..."but you are 5'11'', you could weight more than that".

I have never read that May Pang said John was 5'9½'' but I believe what mcfan says. Take a look at this pic. Click Here

The wear normal shoes, Yoko is 5'2'' and the diffirence is about 8 inches, making John 5'10'', although I must say he looks taller on that pic, if I didn´t know their height I would say 6'1''-6'2'' but that is just an illusion.

To me John was 5'10'', Paul a tad more, George 5'9.75 and Ringo 5'6½''.

Dylan says on 30/Nov/09
McFan - When I read John, Paul and George were all 5'11" in the sixties I accepted it and I still doubt any of them were under 5'10". I am reading a biography on John Lennon at the moment and in the photographs when he was in his late teens and slimmer, he does in fact look quite tall. There did not look much if any difference in their hieghts. In one book John described himself as just under 6ft, which I think was an exaggeration, I then read that Yoko said he was 5'10". I think the heights may have been something like Paul
5'10.5" John 5'10" George 5'10" Ringo 5'7"

mcfan says on 29/Nov/09
Dylan, yeah it is of great benefit to have Frank2's knowledge of having met so many celebrities. As for the three being 5'9.5, I'll buy that for George, but J&P seemed more 5'10ish to me. We know from the 1965 video I supplied within the last two weeks that Paul & John were virtually the same height in 1965 and that "Your Mother Should Know" two years later, again, the same thing. George is not quite their height. Yoko said John was 5'10. May Pang said 5'9.5. Maybe one is morning height. Myself I don't get varying degrees of height from morning to evening, but who knows? At first glance, Paul looks the tallest, but when John stands up straight they look pretty darn even to me. People have the illusion of John being shorter from the Sgt Pepper cover and his crouching while playing guitar. Here's "Hello Goodbye." At 3:14-15 they seem again the same height:

Click Here

LoveMeDo42 says on 26/Nov/09
He was 5'11", and a lot more broad shouldered than the others. I'd say that Paul looks taller due to John having a shorter torso, and shorter legs. Also between John, Paul, and George, John had the worst posture, and he almost never stood still, and his shoulders were low, George had average posture, with average shoulders, and Paul had perfect posture with High shoulders, John just had a slight younger neck, and slightly larger head, which made them the same height.

Dylan says on 25/Nov/09
mcfan - I agree, he did seem taller than 5'9" to me too, That 1981 article is obviously wrong because although they have reduced McCartney and Harrison to 5'9" and 5'8.5" respectively, they have left Ringo at 5'8" and there was clearly over 2" difference between the others and Ringo. Of course it would be more believable if they had listed Ringo as 5'6.5" of which there have been several claims. Not sure about Steven Tyler's height but I am sure Rod Stewart was at least 5'10" so that is definately wrong in my opinion. I was interested in reading Frank2's post whereby he said he met all the Beatles at their peak and none of them were as tall as him and he is 5'11". I have always found Frank2's height assessments on here to be extremely accurate. I am wondering whether John, Paul and George were around the 5'9.5" and Ringo 5'6.5" heights without footwear. Just speculation on my part, what do you think mcfan?

mcfan says on 25/Nov/09
I saw an article from 1989 calling him '5'9' as well. However, he looked 5'10 to me in Give My Regards To Broad Street. Even not long ago I thought he still looked 5'9.5, but I still say the guy was 5'10 during the Beatles and even into the mid-80s. In a book I have of People from 1981 it lists McCartney as 5'9, George Harrison as 5'8.5, and Ringo as 5'8. Obviously, these are wrong. The same book also has Steven Tyler and Rod Stewart as 5'7 and 5'7 3/4.

Dylan says on 23/Nov/09
mcfan - I think I agree with you. Being a huge Beatles fan in the sixties I took an interest in everything about them and they were listed as all being 5'11" with the exception of Ringo 5'8". Then years after I was reading a slimming section in a daily newsapaper and there was an article on Paul McCartney, he was now with Linda Eastman and she had converted him to vegetarian and he had subsequently lost weight and this article listed him as 5'9" in height. At the time he was only about 28 - 30 years old so he couldn't have shrunk.

mcfan says on 22/Nov/09
Dylan, good theory. If they're 5'10 with 2-inch stilettos then they would be just under 6 feet as in JL's claim above. If they're in regular shoes, then they would be around 5'11. There is no evidence that any of these guys were over 5'10. I'll buy 5'9.5 for George and 5'10 for J & P. (I never knew Ringo's height, but he appeared 3-3.5 inches shorter than the other three.)

Dylan says on 22/Nov/09
I have never had the pleasure of meeting any of them, however, all these claims of John, Paul and George being below 5'11" and Ringo being below 5'8" made by people who have seen them in the flesh, makes me wonder whether their heights registered in the sixties were including footwear.

dan says on 5/Nov/09
people are so obsessed about height?who cares how tall he was.that really does not matter.the only people who care so much about height are people who get caught up in societys pressure to "think" you are better because of certain things.we should be judgeing people on their heart.john had plenty of that.

Anonymous says on 31/Aug/09
I used to play in a band w/ one guy 6'3 and another 5'4. There are simples ways to mask these differences in height to get a uniform picture, by placing the shorter members closer to the camera if only inches. Then drop the height of the camera to change perspective, magically everyone is the same height in the picture. It works drastically the opposite as well, making band members freakishly tall or short. you can't trust video or pictures unless they were in a police line up against a wall, w/ horizontal lines, even then a camera could play w/ inches.

ThoughtProvoking says on 27/Aug/09
tl, in the video for 'Your Mother Should know' Paul has john by maybe half an inch and likewise John has George by about the same. So I'm not sure how you see Lennon as the tallest.

Having said that, there's probably less than an inch in it between the three of them. They're all around the 5'10'' mark.

mcfan says on 29/Jun/09
Cyberyank, am I looking at the same video? John's heels are just loafers, not the cuban heels or stilettos. He probably has a half-inch more heel than Chuck if that. Also, I don't see anywhere near 4.5 inches difference...more like 3 inches max. If John is 5'9 then Chuck is 6ft in this video. More likely Chuck was 6'1 and John about 5'10. Also, we know Julian was 5'8 and he's standing next to Chuck just like John did and he looks significantly shorter than John by comparison. John was slightly taller than David Bowie and I think Bowie was 5'9.5.

mcfan says on 26/Jun/09
Yeah, I think George should be downgraded to 5'9.5. These heights on the site are not accurate. George listed here as 5'10 was always shorter than Clapton listed at 5'9.5. As you say, John and Paul are even with the same footwear and are both standing side by side with good posture for once, but to say Macca was 5'11 is a joke. Even in the 90s this guy was said to be 5'9.5 by reputable magazines. Tom Jones listed as 5'10.5 was also taller than Paul in the 60s and the 90s. Jimmy Page and Robert Plant are overblown also by an inch. I don't think Plant was any taller than Townshend listed correctly here at 6'0. He would always wear cowboy boots with huge heels.

mcfan says on 29/May/09
That's interesting, but I seem to recall John & Paul on the Tonight Show after Lady Madonna was released and they sure looked the same height to me. John walked out first then Paul followed if I remember right and another guy was hosting the show. (I don't remember who it was) I've got a book called which clearly proves that John was taller than George by a 1/4 to a half-inch in a late 1967 photo. They're both standing side by side with similar heeled shoes. Again during the Magical Mystery Tour John and Paul are the same height or very close, but George is less. There's another photo from Abbey Road in Anthology where Paul is barefoot and George is in sandals probably 3/4 in heels and he is 1/8 to 1/4 taller than Paul. It's just one of those things where all three are within a half-inch of each other. One guy -- Paul has great posture with high shoulders. George has slightly bad posture with average leveled shoulders. John has horrible posture with a long neck and low shoulders. I still say:

Paul 5'10 at peak (5'9.5 now)
John 5'9.75 - 5'10 at peak
George 5'9.25 - 5'9.5 peak
Ringo 5'6 - 5'6.25 peak

Col says on 28/May/09
This guy has it right:

Mick says on 11/Nov/08
John and Paul were on some Brit TV show in the mid-60s, both wearing suits and dress shoes. Paul clearly was 1" taller than John and at that time John was much broader, and his hair was starting to get shaggy. George was closer to Paul's height and Ringo is probably under 5'6" now.

Mid-60s:

Paul 5'10.5"
George 5'10"
John 5'9.5"
Ringo 5'7"