|
AD says on 17/Jan/12
Take it from someone who's met him, shaken his hand and had a photo with him ...he was 5'9.5" ...probably more towards 5'9" these days.
Christian says on 14/Jan/12
ckashekfa- Interesting. Where did you see this video? ckashekfa says on 12/Jan/12
I saw a video were Paul said he was "5 foot 6" but he seems to be taller... I thought he would be like 1.85 meters Christian says on 10/Dec/11
I was on the first row watching Paul´s On The Run tour here in Stockholm, Sweden. He is quite thin but seems to be in the 5'10'' range or slightly under. He is not short, just average. guyfrommars says 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. jessica eaton says 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 joker says 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. AD says 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. mcfan says 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? AD says 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. Marc says 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 AD says 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. Lyra says 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. 178 says 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. Christian says on 26/Oct/11
-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 says on 13/Oct/11
I belive John and Paul were 5'10ish, George a tad shorter and Ringo about 5'6''. AD says 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. wayne77 says 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. mcfan says on 13/Sep/11
If he was ever 5'11, I'm 1-inch taller than I claim to be. Jennifer says 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". castillo says 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. 178 says 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. Frank45 says 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. 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. satchy says on 29/Jul/11
peak 5ft 10, nowadays-5ft 9 thats for sure 178 says 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. John Tak says 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 mike says 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 says 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? mcfan says on 4/Jun/11
David Lynch looks 2 inches taller than Paul, not an inch. mike says 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. Martyr says 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. mcfan says on 17/May/11
David Bowie was not quite 5'9.5, not 5'10. Sean says on 17/May/11
David Bowie is 5'10" just for the record mike says 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. Christian says on 11/May/11
I agree with 178 that Paul look closer to 5'9'' than 5'10''. What would you say Rob? J says on 11/May/11
No, as for the height of Paul McCartney, there is 5 ft 9.75 in when all photographs look well． 178 says 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. todd r. brassner says 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. mcfan says on 28/Apr/11
George was slightly under John and Paul. guyfrommars says 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. Roddodg says 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. mcfan says 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 says 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. Fred says 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. AD says on 15/Mar/11
I think remove 2cm exactly from the listed 'now' and 'peak' heights above .... and that would be spot on. mcfan says 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 says 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. Christian says on 9/Feb/11
Hey Rob!
I think Sam is right. Paul look closer to 5'9˝'' nowdays. Sometimes I think he can look only 5'9'' but I guess that could be angles.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here Sam says on 7/Feb/11
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 says 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. me says on 11/Jan/11
That apple picture was altered. I saw the original and george and paul was the same height. 177lad! says 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. 177lad! says on 10/Jan/11
Appeared to be exactly the same height as 5' 9" (175 cm) Simon Pegg at an awards event recently. me says 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? me says on 4/Jan/11
All 3 of them are about the same height separate by .5 inch. anon says 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). Sam says 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. me says 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 says 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. me says 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 says 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 me says on 21/Dec/10
@Bevyn
They looked like the 3 stooges. Bevyn says on 20/Dec/10
Wow, they look shorter in photos and movies/TV.... me says on 14/Dec/10
@kevin
I've noticed that too. mcfan says 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. TallGuy says 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. Anonymous says 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. mcfan says on 11/Dec/10
Here is the video you mentioned:
Click Here Lefty says 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. Christian says on 10/Dec/10
Standing next to Jimmy Fallon, Paul lokked 5'9'' but it could have been the angle. Kevin says on 10/Dec/10
Fallon was swearing heeled dress shoes, while Paul was wearing flat tennis shoes AD says on 10/Dec/10
That would make sense cause Macca is most definately 5'9.5" smegma says on 10/Dec/10
Just saw him on Jimmy Fallon and Fallon (listed at 5'11.75" is easily 2-3 inches taller. elaine pappas says on 10/Dec/10
paul mcCartney is not 5 10 standing next to jimmy fallon paul is 2 inchs shorter then fallon Mack says on 10/Dec/10
John and Paul both 5'6, George was 5'3 and Ringo is 4'11". Josep says on 9/Dec/10
Podeis consultar en Click Here , si no recuerdo mal estan entre 1,78 y 1,80 (McCartney algo más alto que los demás), sin embargo a Ringo le dan 1,70. Gregorovich says 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 says 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. Anonymous says 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. AD says on 22/Nov/10
This guy is pushing 70 let's not forget ;o) ...he's not gone too OTT on the 'youth enhancements', hats off to him as well for working so damn hard at what he loves to bring his fans what they want year after year when it could have been so easy to retire and relax 30 years ago! His height has always been between 176cm and 177cm, his broad high-set shoulders and sheer presence of the guy makes him appear taller when you meet him... also, on a personal note, extremely friendly and down to earth. An absolute legend. Chris says on 16/Nov/10
Yep, that's a toupee. His hair got thicker over the last few years. Also, looks extremely fake now. me says on 9/Nov/10
@jamesgp
Did you really had a chance encounter with the Sir? me says 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. JAMESGP says 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! castillo says 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.) |
