John Lennon's Height
5ft 10 (177.8 cm)
English Singer from The Beatles. He did claim in a 1964 edition of SixTeen magazine "[I'm] just under 6 feet tall. I weigh 159 pounds"
and in another interview "About five feet, eleven inches"
You May Be Interested
Add a Comment450 comments
Average Guess (84 Votes)
5ft 9.99in (177.8cm)
Christian said on 18/Nov/20
-kazu, Please tell us more. Did you ever meet him?
kazu said on 30/Oct/20
When he makes clothes in Japan. When he measured his height, it was 176 cm. It remains in the record of the clothing store.
Vanian said on 9/Oct/20
My father knew them from the early days, him being a singer himself, Paul Kelly. He played support to them at Chester Royalty on the Beatles Pacemakers tour.
He said Paul, was 5"11, John 5"10, George 5"9 and Ringo 5"7. He said they all looked taller cis of the Cuban heels. John always nicked cigarettes and lives chips in a hollowed out loaf from Scott's bakery in Liverpool.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 9/Oct/20
Well, fancy that! John's son by Yoko Ono, 5ft2, Sean Lennon, shares his birthday with his Dad, and today he is turning 45 years of age.
Sean is 175cm tall and his half-brother, Julian is 2cm shorter according to the source I found. Julian's Mum, Cynthia, peaked at 5ft3.
🎂🎁 Happy 4️⃣5️⃣th Birthday Sean! 🎁🎂
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 9/Oct/20
@ Christopher Grech - That's not off-topic; that's sheer entertainment! Well done, Christopher! 😁👏
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 9/Oct/20
John Lennon should be turning 80 today, precisely twice the age he was when he was so needlessly killed. 😩
RIP John 🕯️ XXX 🎵🎧🎶
Christopher Grech said on 18/Jul/20
A little off topic but the average height of a man in the 1960's in the UK was only about 5'7",now it's about 5'10". Also average male weights have increased from about 11 stone to about 13 stone. Lennon hit 13 stone around 1964 and was dubbed the 'fat Beatle' by the media!
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 10/May/20
I was outraged just now to find the sick, twisted ******d who murdered John Lennon among today's Celebrity Birthdays. How disgusting is that? 🖕
John gets 5ft10. 🕯️🎶🎧🎵
Hypefinn said on 16/Mar/20
This is the height that the morgue estimated him to be. I don’t know, might be wrong might not be
Mike James said on 2/Mar/20
Fact; In 1980 the New York coroner let it be known that John Lennon's height was 5' 10 1/2".
Christian said on 27/Feb/20
I did meet Yoko back in 2004. She wore high heels and seemed about 5'5'. I think she must have been around 5'2'' when she was young. I would say John looked about 8 inches taller than Yoko and that would put him at about 5'10''. Imo Paul was a 0.25-0.5 inch taller than John and George looked John's height or just a tad under.
178.5 cm for Paul in his youth, 177.5-178 cm for John and 177-178 cm for George. (He often had quite a bad posture).
Ringo just shy of 170 cm in his youth.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 22/Feb/20
Surely they couldn't pretend that even Ringo was five foot nine, Brodlington? That sounds very far fetched indeed! John himself looked very tall - next to his second wife Yoko. I found written for her the other day that she was five two, but I can't see more than just over five foot for Yoko and five foot ten for John.
Cheers Brodlington. I wish you a great weekend! 😁👍
Brodington said on 20/Feb/20
John was only 5'9, George was 5'9.25 or 5'9.5,ringo was 5'6 and paul was 5'9 3/4. The tailor did say they were all 5'9. Remember they wore heels which made them close to 2 inches taller than they actually were.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 18/Feb/20
Today is the 87th Birthday of John's other half, Yoko Ono. I found her height to be 5ft2, but I don't believe it - especially now! 🎂💐
John gets 5ft10.5.
Mike James said on 11/Feb/20
'Some are saying he was taller...just not true',. Is that right?
It was an American CORONER who performed an autopsy on Lennon's body and stated
he was 5' 10 1/2" and not me.
So, what are we saying here, that he got it wrong?
Garth Felske said on 8/Feb/20
John was a good inch,inch & a half shorter than Paul, ..no big deal, however, some are saying he was taller,. just not true..Again though, meant nothing ...Cheers
Kirby said on 26/Jan/20
They were all three very close to exactly the same height, with John getting a slight nudge. There are tens of thousands of Beatles pics. If one is bending their knees and one is standing up straight, or if one has slightly higher heels than another, or one is standing slightly behind another, people use those pics to prove X is taller than Y. The only way to compare them fairly is the “Your Mother Should Know” sequence from “Magical Mystery Tour”. They are all wearing the EXACT same clothes and shoes, no hats, and all are standing straight as a board (a rarity for George and John). In those pics they look within a half-inch of each other, with John the tallest by the slightest amount.
Rory said on 1/Jan/20
Saw a video of him next to Jack Palance the other day and he did look 5ft11. Looked 4 inches shorter than him in 1971. Didn't see footwear though.
Spencer Dobkin said on 8/Nov/19
Lennon was taller than Harrison . Harrison was 5'9" at most. Lennon was a weak 5'10".
Ethan Larsen said on 28/Oct/19
No way is Lennon ever 5'11. Lennon is 5'9.5" max and even that is a stretch considering he always wore tall footware. George Harrison is at least 1.75 inches taller than him since he slouched constantely.
Yang (5 footer 8, 173) said on 7/Oct/19
He was almost same height with his partner Paul McCartney with his peak height like 5ft 9 half range or so before he was shot by perpetrator named Mark David Chapman... it's hard for me to believe that he died early just like Americas most famous singer in the history named King of Rock N Roll Elvis Presley.
GWYDION GLENNON said on 24/Jul/19
I just discovered that John was actually 5'11", in other words, yes, he was too much taller than you think. He wasn't 179 cm, as a lot of people thought. He was 180 cm.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 24/Jul/19
Quote: "A signed confession from his wife which he ate and donated to the National Trust..."
As manure? What else? 😂👍🦌🦌🚜😂
Taken from 'Happiness is a Warm Gun', The Beatles Double White Album.
GWYDION GLENNON said on 23/Jul/19
I've heard that Paul was 5ft and 11 inch. He was only two centimeters higher than John. John was actually 5 ft 10, but Google says he was 5 ft 5,9.
JayL said on 18/Jul/19
Salvador Dali has been put at 5’8”.
Then look at the photos of him meeting John Lennon.
They’re practically eye to eye.
So I’m putting John at that height as well.
JD 5'9" said on 29/Apr/19
Not Sure how accurate wax figures are probably not exact. However I saw his wax figure at the wax museum in San Francisco. I'm 5'9" and was the same height as him.
William_O'Jell said on 13/Apr/19
I don't think Paul was any taller than John. Paul had a better posture and was more height conscious than John Having looked at many photos of Lennon with other people I would have to say he was about five feet ten and a half.
stephen conn said on 18/Mar/19
If Paul's 5'9 1/2 I'd put John at upper end of 5'8". Footage of him walking up to Paul in the studio circa 1963 (that one of Paul playing paddy-cake) and he's peering up at him. He just looked super-tall standing next to Yoko, who's dinky.
Maryann Minner said on 17/Mar/19
John Lennon was 5’11. Not 5’10
DomP said on 8/Mar/19
William Oates, if Dudley Moore is 5'3", then John L looks between 5'9" and 5'10", at most. Then again, in a moving video it can distort accurate differences.
said on 1/Mar/19
Here is some footage from the 1965 comedy show 'Not Only But Also'. John is seen walking with Dudley Moore and another comedian. I believe that Dudley was only about 5ft 3' but can't confirm that.
DomP said on 25/Feb/19
I would have to say, after looking at many photos, that J Lennon was the tallest in the group in the very early days and in the later years, P McCartney & G Harrison looked a bit taller. A moving video is NO proof, my the way. Angles, posture and how the camera was set can be, marginally inaccurate.
DomP said on 19/Feb/19
Perfect Paul, check the Beatles for Sale CD, very old, LOL. John and George very close in height. George looks a bit taller, but to be fair it's his hair. Sounds like a Song. But anyway they look exactly the same height. John with his head up high, with great posture, in that shot.
Perfect Paul said on 15/Feb/19
I agree with you regarding Paul's heels and posture at times, making him look the tallest Beatle.
Him and John were actually dead level, with George being very close - but a tiny 0.25" shorter. Most evidence points to this. Look at the video for Your Mother Should Know, for example.
Most evidence with other celebs also shows George to have been a weak 5' 10", more like 5' 9.5" to 5' 9.75".
Therefore, the absolute max for these guys is:
Paul: 5' 10" (178 cm)
John: 5' 10" (178 cm)
George: 5' 9.75" (177 cm)
But Paul consistently looked only 5' 9.5" in his 40s and 50s, which seems too early for half-inch shrinkage.
I think the one thing we can say is that the front 3 were all 177 cm (5' 9.5" to 5' 10") guys, rather than 5' 10" to 5' 10.5".
Dom P said on 13/Feb/19
I have to disagree with most of the last posting. John and George, true legends, yes for sure. I saw George next to Mick Jagger, at R&R Hall of Fame in late 80's and G.H. looked a bit taller. So John and George most pictures look pretty much the same height. The actual numbers are tricky on all four Beatles, but it is very, very close, if not the same for J,P & G. If you notice in many pictures of them, Paul almost always stands straight and is the most likely, wearing noticeable healed shoes.
Perfect Paul said on 25/Jan/19
Rob, I would bet top dollar on John Lennon measuring 5' 9.5" (177 cm).
My estimates for the Fab Four are:
Paul McCartney: 5' 9.75" (177 cm)
John Lennon: 5' 9.5" (177 cm)
George Harrison: 5' 9.25" (176 cm)
Ringo Starr: 5' 6.5" (169 cm)
Paul getting 5' 9.75" makes sense, as that is still practically 5' 10". Remember, he clearly looked below 178 cm with Tom Jones (5' 10.5"). Looked the same as David Bowie (177 cm). Only just very slightly edges John. Paul's 5' 10.5" claim was his morning height!
Paul has held up very well indeed; and like Rod Stewart, in his 70s has lost hardly anything - half inch tops. I don't think he's any less than 5' 9.25" today even at 76!
John at 5' 9.5" really is the most he could have been. Look at him at Rock 'n' Roll Circus, 1968 with Pete Townshend (5' 11.75"), Keith Moon (5' 9"), Mick Jagger (5' 10"), Keith Richards (5' 9"). Also 1 inch shorter than Tom Jones and 3 inches less than Chuck Berry (6' 0.5"). Only half an inch taller than Art Garfunkel (5' 9"). No taller than David Bowie either.
George was only a fraction shorter than John. Looked 5' 9.25" at best with Bob Dylan (5' 6.5"), Bob Marley (5' 6.75") and Peter Sellers (5' 8.5"). No taller than Eric Clapton (5' 9.5") too and sometimes edged by him.
Ringo was around 3 inches below the others and 2 inches less than Peter Sellers.
Remember, Bruce Forsyth (5' 11") made John, Paul and George all look clearly below 5' 10" - similar footwear too.
I understand these guys are true legends (I'm a huge fan) and you don't want to be disrespectful to their memories - certainly in the cases of John and George.
Also, their 1.5" boots made them look taller and more like the listings you currently have them at. I think this certainly fooled people into thinking they were taller than they really were.
Can you see where I'm coming from here? Apologies for the essay...
Michael 5'10", 178 cm said on 12/Dec/18
He was definitely not 5'11" as he was shorter than Paul McCartney. John was 5'10" tops maybe even shorter than that at peak and he looked no taller than George. John Lennon was 5'10" IMO.
Mighty D said on 8/Dec/18
5’10”, 159 lbs
Jake the Snake
said on 20/Nov/18
Hey Rob do you think lennon was 5'11 out of bed ? Also do you think he lost any height by age 40 or do you reckon he stayed a strong 5'10 ? He always looked to be the tallest Beatle to me having a slight edge on Paul
I'd be surprised if he lost anything by 40, though I think maybe weak 5ft 11 out of bed.
Jean claude Jaffry said on 20/Nov/18
No john lennon 175 cm
Dom P said on 16/Nov/18
When I was a kid, I think I heard about J Lennon shot down when I was watching the abc football game. It was well covered on the abc, nbc, and cbs quite well. Cable was kinda new. Not covered well. Maybe CNN some. Lennon was a legend and it should been covered better. He was 5'10" about the same as Mac and Harry.
greg lehmann said on 30/Oct/18
Around my 5'10" size. When Lennon was assassainated on Black Monday Dec.8,1980,after Dave Diles (let's get this clear: Howard Cosell did NOT break the news of Lennon's death. Diles did.) After Dave had mentioned about Lennon's senseless death,I thought, "Is it true?" Then my college bowling coach Jack Hellrung called me up and asked me,"Do you have cable TV Greg?" I told Jack "Just got it last week." Then Jack asked me,"Any New York stations on your cable,Greg?" I told Jack,"WOR." "Turn it on," Jack told me. "More information just came in on Lennon's death." So turning on WOR,I saw New York Mets TV announcer Steve Zabriskie crying! Sadly Steve made what Dave Diles had stated 50 minutes earlier was true/John Lennon was DEAD! Steve next explained about Lennon and the Beatles legacy. Then the next day I thought next,"Why would anybody be stupid enough to kill such a great singer?" I then went into my Claude Pertwee bit Paul Lynde always screamed on Where's Huddles,"SAVAGE!" Sure enough,two days later,I remembered something the late great jockey Bill Boland said prior to the 1968 Belmont Stakes (he won it driving Stage Door Johnny while Draft Card beat out Forward Pass and got 2nd while the eventual 1968 Kentucky Derby winner limped home 3rd),"You get somebody speaking love and peace,and senselessly they're "bdead bducks" to be killed." The timing of Lennon's death was horrible! Just two weeks after my nephew Mathieu was born. The week after I got cable TV. The week before sis Pam's first wedding anniversary. Two weeks before Christmas! But worst of all,when I got a Beatles album on Dec.20,1980,the price of that album was SCALPED! While it is true he was threatened with being deported back to England on a phony hashish smuggling conviction,Lennon led the GREATEST singing group of my life! It is also true at some early Beatles concerts children AS YOUNG AS 4 AND 5 YEARS OLD mobbed the Beatles,doubtless due to their great TV cartoon series,what really makes the Beatles special is that NO TWO BEATLES SONGS SOUND THE SAME! Some are playful and others reflected what the 1960's were like. ALWAYS Lennon's death will haunt me,but the Beatles legacy will NEVER die!
Spencer said on 16/Sep/18
In the I Feel Fine video Lennon looks slightly taller than Paul. In some videos Paul looks taller so they must have been around the same height. I think John and Paul were both peak about 5'10.25"
Dries said on 3/Aug/18
In his Beatles heydays, he mostly wore 'Cuban heels' making him look 5'10".
Later on, he mostly wore flat sneakers not being taller than 1,76 1/2.... See pictures from
Stones' Rock 'n' roll circus (1968)...
said on 8/Jun/18
-Rob. What would you say about the video Willes189 posted? John looks taller than 5.10. Is it the camera angle?
It's tricky, I could see a bit over 5ft 10 there.
said on 27/May/18
He absolutely towers over Dick Cavett 4:21
He has a really big head as well, he looks WAY taller than 5'10 in that interview...
JB said on 15/Apr/18
Dom P, I used to think the same thing. I actually used to think they were taller than 6ft until I saw their listings on here. It makes sense tho, they were tall for their generation. I also once thought the Beatles were 5'11" until I saw all the evidence that suggests none of them were over 5'10".
Dom P said on 15/Apr/18
I always thought Neil Young and Pete Townsend were 6 ft. at their peak. Lennon and Harrison 5'10" at their peak. McCartney is hard to tell. He always wears heals, it seems. Probably 5'10" at his peak as well.
JB said on 7/Apr/18
Also look at other rockers from that era like Neil Young or Pete Townsend who were both 5'11" range and were noticeably taller than their peers. The Beatles do not measure up. 5'9" - 5'10" for John, Paul, and George. 5'5" or 5'6" for Ringo.
JB said on 7/Apr/18
It's hard to think that after all these years and all the evidence that anybody still believes any of the Beatles were 5'11". I know it's a hard pill for some people to swallow that their idols aren't as large as they thought they were. John, Paul, and George were all around 5'9" - 5'10". They were average height.
The problem is a lot of people think 5'9" is shorter than it actually is. It's average for guys born in the 1940's. If any of the Beatles were legit 5'11" they would be noticeable tall for their time, like Elvis.
Big Al of Bondi said on 23/Mar/18
Ali at 6’2-6’2.5 easily towered over all four Beatles. 5’9 seemed right for John.
Dom P said on 17/Feb/18
Mr. J Lennon was the tallest Beatle in 1964 at 5'11. McCartney and Harrison the same at 5'10 1/2. But the 3 do look the same in most pictures on and off. Later years, its hard to tell.
Ally N said on 16/Dec/17
After viewing many Photos (without boots) I would for sure say in 1963/64 John 5'10.5, Paul 5'10", George 5'9 3/4" and Ringo 5'6 3/4". George grew a bit more by 1965. In 1969 John and George both 5'10 1/2, Paul 5'9 3/4". Ringo same as 1964. The reason I say Paul is only 5'9 3/4" is because he 99% of the time had thick or massive heals which almost always made him look taller. Never wore sneakers. John and George sneakers or flatter shoes. Plus they both had poor posture half the time. Paul has outstanding posture almost every photo. Paul's Height even on YouTube shows him with varying heights. Also Paul did shrink a bit over the years. He is now probably 5'9 1/2".
Brenda said on 14/Dec/17
I think Paul's slightly taller. Paul- 5"11 John- 5"10.5 George- 5"9.5 Ringo- 5"6
Ally n said on 14/Dec/17
Paul on the Hey Jude cover wearing huge heals. Check the back cover. Front cover lined up next to each other. John and George wearing slight heels. So obvious Paul and George showing exact height. But Paul no doubt the largest heels. George is actually the tallest here, even with flat hair. John looking slightly shorter even with the hat on. It may be his posture that day. But I must say he looks the tallest in many other photos. 5'10" for John is about right on average.
Stew A said on 13/Dec/17
Looking at the video with Chuck Berry 6' 1" and Mike Douglas 5'9" he looks about the same height as Mike but john's wearing heels. Paul stood about 2 feet away from me but he was in the doorway of his tour bus. He didn't look 5'11" . I believe they all lied about their height and they wore heels that were about 2" or more. They all had different boot heels to give them a more uniform height except for Ringo. So John and Paul may have been 5'9" max and probably less. John and George's heels were much higher that Paul's.
Ally N said on 12/Dec/17
I believe John was the tallest Beatle by just a bit, but the Hey Jude cover photo is the only doubt I have.
ally N said on 7/Dec/17
I will stick 5'10" for JL.
ally N said on 7/Dec/17
John will always stand taller than the rest because he was so creative. He reminds me of my Dad, without the cursing.
ally N said on 7/Dec/17
Peak height was probably 5'10.5" for John.
AllyN said on 16/Nov/17
The magical mystery tour video never really has them all standing evenly lined up. Poor footage and angles, also. Hey Jude cover has the 3 taller Lads lined up.
macfan said on 12/Nov/17
I think they look the same height in the video. There is a slant to the way the camera was angled, but Harrison just isn't as tall as John or Paul here and they're all wearing the same shoes. If Paul McCartney is 5'10.25 how is Eric Clapton 5'9.5 when Eric was taller than George?
Anonymous said on 12/Nov/17
John does look the tallest in Mystery Tour dance footage. His posture in that footage is better than normal, for him. I heard he was sometimes, self conscious about his height. I wonder if that was true.
macfan said on 8/Nov/17
Paul is certainly not taller than John in that video below posted Aug 28th.
Christian said on 7/Nov/17
- Brad, Can you please tell how you met John and what shoes he was he wearing at the time? Thank you.
Brad said on 31/Oct/17
5-10 flat 40.5 years ago by me. Paul was the tallest Beatle.
macfan said on 1/Oct/17
I'm in agreement John and George look a half-inch shorter than Paul half of the time, but the Aug 28th posting below proves Paul was not the tallest of the group.
Anonymous said on 28/Sep/17
The Beatles (morning/evening heights):
John: 179-177 cm/ 5'9.75".
Paul: 180-178 cm/ 5'10".
George: 177.5-175.5 cm/ 5'9".
Ringo: 171.5-169.5 cm/ 5'6.75".
Nothing more, guys.
F. Bastid said on 8/Sep/17
It's amazing through the years speculating how John was much smaller in height. First 5'8" is ridiculous. If you see a person around 5'8" i.e. Ringo, Maurice Gibb standing next to a person like Paul, the difference is too great. Mick Jagger has stated he is about 5'10" and John and Mick together shows their height is very close. Chuck Berry was clocked in at 6'1" and having those two standing together, john was slightly shorter Meeting Yoko a couple of times, Iwas always struck on how tiny she is. Height and frame! 5'0" I'm guessing So having an average height male next to her can make them look well over 6 feet which confused people i think.
said on 28/Aug/17
The only way to be absolute in proving the height of two individuals is to have them standing properly side by side in the same footwear. Here we have absolute proof that McCartney is not taller than Lennon, however, I don't think either one is over 5'10:
Spencer said on 15/Aug/17
178 cm 5'10 5'10.25. I think Paul was 5'10.75
AllyN said on 27/Jul/17
John had bad posture at times as did George. Paul has very good posture. With bad posture and bad angles anybody could look shorter than normal. Its obvious all three very close height with the right photo. Probably 5'10" each. The american Hey Jude cover proves what I am stating. Ringo only one not standing straight. Probably 5'7" when standing right. Any of the three, J,P,& G could look taller than the other in a skewed photo.
said on 20/Jul/17
still from Your Mother Should Know - same footwear and clothes:
McPete said on 14/Jul/17
My guess for all for of them, at peak height, is:
Ringo 5'7 (he is clearly shorter than the others, but he doesn't look ridiculously short)
George 5'9 (noticeably shorter than John, but not by much)
John 5'9 3/4
Paul 5'10 3/4
At that time (i.e. around 1965 to 1970) they often wore slim fitting clothes, and they were all fairly slim build, so I think that makes them appear slightly taller than my estimate.
These days I'd guess Macca is around 5'9 1/2 and Ringo maybe 5'6 1/4
A.B. Baker said on 3/Jun/17
Are there any photos of Ringo Starr with Kurt Cobain?
Simon said on 21/May/17
Are people generally in consensus that Paul was the taller one of them?
macfan said on 15/May/17
Find a John Lennon pic or video where he is standing up perfectly straight and you have a rare item. Find a photo of the three Beatles standing with the same shoes with good posture and it will not be found....but then there is the Your Mother Should Know video which is conclusive proof that John and Paul are the same height and are clearly taller than George by a smidgen.
I still think Clapton was taller than George and maybe a hair taller or the same height as John and Paul.
jpgr said on 14/May/17
Jaffry jean claude said on 28/Apr/17
John 175 cm george 177 cm paul 179 cm and ringo 168 cm
said on 23/Apr/17
I don't agree that George was taller than Lennon. George and John was the same height. Paul just a tad taller. If you look at this clip when John is in Cannes with Yoko I'd say he looked pretty average, around 5'10'', he could have been 5'9.5'', so 177-178 cm.
Here is a pic from the same event in Cannes and standing beside Yoko and John is the french actress Jeanne Moreau who is/was 5'3''. John seems to stand around 5'10'' although the ground could make a diffirence. Click Here
Take a look at this pic. John and yoko in there bare feet.
I honestly don´t know how tall Yoko is? I have seen her once with very high heels here in Stockholm and she was around 5.5 with them on. So I would say she was about 5.1'' when she was together with John.
How tall would you Rob say Yoko is and could John only have been 5'9.5'?
macfan said on 14/Apr/17
He sure looked 3 inches taller than Shirley Maclaine in 1972 on Mike Douglas
Brendon Eric said on 19/Mar/17
@ Sandy Cowell: haha, yes Sandy, John's height doesn't matter at all, what really matters is his music and legacy. But knowing little facts like his height it's only a fan (big) curiosity. Well, I forgot to tell one more thing: we all know Paul McCartney is a bit taller than John, but many people that met Paul said he is shorter than he appeared in photos or on the TV shows (I found these stories randomly on Beatles-related forums). Google says that Paul's height is 5'11 (180 cm), but if he is really shorter like those that met him said, he could be 5'9 (175 cm) (5 centimeters isn't a great difference in height). So, can it be one more proof that John wasn't 5'9 or 5'10 or 5'11? Looking at photos is hard to tell the height of someone, as photos are taken in different angles and focus. Well well well, The mysterious case of John Lennon's height continues, and its investigation too! Abraços do Brasil ao querido povo britânico ;)
Ally N said on 19/Mar/17
The Hey Jude cover clearly shows Paul and George taller than John. Paul has the biggest heels. So go figure, George is the tallest. John did have bad posture, sometimes.
Sandy Cowell said on 18/Mar/17
@ Brendan Eric - Hello! You replied all the way from Brazil! How very exciting!
I certainly took in what you said about John Lennon and then I went on an internet search to find pictures of him, especially those on the album covers! It was an incredibly unsuccessful search, but that doesn't mean to say I have stopped looking for evidence! I have a copy of his greatest hits, a double album, and Beatles recordings have passed in and out of my collection for years, so I know that there are pictures on the front covers which should show the heights of all the Beatles pretty well! It does take a few weeks before I can vote again and this time I'll doubtless go a bit lower again!
His music and that of the other Beatles is great, regardless of whether he was shorter than he seemed! It doesn't bother me, but it is always interesting to find out little facts like this! Cheers - all the way from England! 🍻
Brendon Eric said on 18/Mar/17
@ Sandy Cowell: I don't know why people say this, but John's height definitely isn't 5'11. He only seemed tall because Yoko is a very tiny woman, and as she walked with him at every place by his side, she made him look tall in photos, but he wasn't. Did you see the photos of the couple in 1971 in Cannes, France, as I said? Take a look: John is a small guy (his legs is not so long as most biographers tell in their books). For me he was just 5'7, hardly 5'8. Also, take a look at him on the movie Gimme Some Truth: The Making of Imagine. There we see John many times recording musics for Imagine album in the studio he built inside his own house, Tittenhurst Park. Lean, with light hair and using orange glasses (and almost every time smoking), you can easily notice him as a small dude. As I said previously, Yoko's head is a bit higher than John's shoulders, and presuming Yoko's height is 4'10/4'11 like my uncle said, well my friend, John can't be 5'9 or 5'10 or 5'11.
Sandy Cowell said on 17/Mar/17
I've just been on a fruitless search for evidence of John's height in the form of pictures. It was useless! The only picture I found was of him playing at the John Sinclair Freedom Rally with Yoko and I reckon they're sitting on stalls!
This time John will get 5ft9 from me on the basis of what I read earlier, so I have lopped over an inch off!
Sandy Cowell said on 17/Mar/17
@ Brendan Eric (17.3.27) and Nikki (24.2.17):
Two separate reports of Yoko Ono being at most 4ft11 makes you wonder whether John was the height he declared - 5ft11? Not with this new evidence!
If he was that tall then Yoko would have been below his shoulders, surely! I believe there is quite some solid evidence here that John might even have been below 5ft10, or 5ft9.
Last time I guessed his height, I thought he was over 5ft10. This time I'm going to put less, but I'll check out these facts with some pictorial comparisons and see what conclusions I come to!
At the moment, I am picturing John in the furry beige coat he wore, but that tells me zilch! It reminds me that I have a good memory for their pictures and nothing more!
Yes, I'll get back on this one, so no new vote will be cast by me as yet!
Brendon Eric said on 17/Mar/17
I'm brazilian but I have an uncle that lives in NY. He met Yoko Ono many times in her events, and he said to me she is very very small (even wearing high boots) . His guess is that she is 4'10 or 4'11 (147-149 cm). Well, as we can see on photographs of her and John, her head is a bit higher than John's shoulders, so John in not as tall as most people think he is. I mean, look at photos of the couple in 1971 in Cannes, France. John looks like a small guy! So, if Yoko is 4'10/4'11 like my uncle said, John's height would be about 5'7 (hardly 5'8).
Obs: My uncle is 5'6 (167 cm). And don't anger at me folks, I'm only supposing, though >I< believe John was only 5'7.
Jaffry jean claude said on 5/Mar/17
175 cm john lennon
Nikki said on 24/Feb/17
Yoko is about 4'10" - I saw her years ago in NYC and I was at least 5 inches taller than her and I'm only 5"4" - she was also wearing two inch heels and I was wearing tennis shoes
said on 20/Feb/17
This pic with Keith Moon 5ft 9, and Pete Townshend 5ft 11.75
said on 23/Jan/17
Based on the film of "Your Mother Should Know" where all of the Beatles are wearing the same shoes and are on a flat surface, how is it that Paul is .25 taller than John and Harrison is listed the same height as John when there isn't a single frame in that video where George looks John and Paul's height? I'll admit Paul appears the tallest in most posed photos, but here you have Lennon standing straight which he seldom did and Paul himself said they were the same height.
Editor Rob: I'd need to sit and watch it again at some point.
Sandy Cowell said on 27/Dec/16
I have just seen a rather poignant documentary about the dreadful murder of this great, peace-loving man. It did leave me dewy-eyed, though I was glad to see it end on a good and positive note.
One of the contributors to the programme said that, some 30 years after that dreadful incident, he saw a young boy of about 16 wearing a John Lennon T-shirt. John would have loved that! It goes to show just how much he contributed to both the music world and also his gentle hopes for mankind are still infiltrating today's youngsters' minds. What a legacy!
In the height department, although at 5ft10 he was clearly above average, especially for his day, I did think he was a touch bigger, probably because he was so often seen with Yoko, who was very short!
jade said on 5/Dec/16
john lennon,s height is 5ff 10 167
said on 11/Nov/16
another couple of frames:
jtm said on 29/Oct/16
Welcome back macfan!
said on 28/Oct/16
Best photo out there on three Beatles - same footwear, dress, with all standing straight:
(shows Lennon/McCartney/Harrison extremely close. Lennon looks the tallest here. In the video Paul and John look the same height and Harrison a half-inch less.
hmm said on 23/Aug/16
Look at the height of Chuck Berry's shoulders next to John's, even, in those photos where Berry is hunching down to the mic you can tell standing straight he'd have more than 2 inches on him. Looking at the photos where they're both standing straight I'd say Chuck Berry has 3 inches height on him; looks 5'9.5~. Still, considering he claimed 5'11" in the 60s and was always wearing those huge cuban heeled shelby boots shouldn't be surprising.
said on 2/Jun/16
-Rob, Did you ever think that John could have been closer to 5'9'' than 5'10''. Sometimes he did look closer to that mark.
Editor Rob: at times I think 5ft 9.5 seemed a possibility.
said on 9/May/16
Rob, what would be the equivalent to John's height today for a 20 year old? I mean, 5'10 is average today, but back then I would guess it was taller
Editor Rob: maybe about 3cm difference when compared to 50 years ago.
Makes69 said on 23/Apr/16
Have seen sir.Paul Mccartney in live..i'm myself 188 centimetres and Sir was on his heels max.176!!!So John Lennon's height is was 'bout 175 for sure.
FIVE NINE said on 27/Feb/16
Watch the YOUR MOTHER SHOULD KNOW video. They are lined up. John is slightly taller than George.
Christian said on 25/Feb/16
Paul was the tallest but John was not shorter then George. I would say John was a tad taller than George, not the other way around.
JB said on 17/Feb/16
Yes Dbl.A I agree. John was the second shortest Beatle next to Ringo of course. Nobody else seems to notice this, but I always have.
Dbl.A said on 3/Feb/16
I was personally told by Beatles clothing expert Russ Lease, who actually owns several actual Beatles suits and jackets, that he personally saw the actual measurement records of tailor Dougie Millings, who made quite a few of their suits in the early days, that John, Paul and George were indeed only 5'9''. In their high cuban heel boots they were 5'11'', which was their official height, not actual. However, it seems that John was just slightly shorter than Paul and George, who appeared to be of equal height. Yes, they were all on the slight side.
Jman said on 21/Jan/16
Yeah John definitely wasn't 5"11, George is listed at 1.77m (5"9.8) which seems right, so john was most likely 1.78m (5"10) but no taller, maybe 5"11 in boots. Paul actually seems to be 1.80m (5"11)
Dolores Bright said on 9/Jan/16
he looked taller than under 6 ft. he looked like he could have been 6'1.
JB said on 21/Nov/15
@Mat 5'10.25 I think that what you said is true about Lennon. But when it comes to his height, maybe he really did think he was 5'11". Lots of people go through there lives without ever actually measuring themselves. One scenario I can think of is John was just going by how tall he was by comparing his height to other people. The Beatles were all around the same height. Maybe one of them lied, then the rest of them said "well I guess we're all around 5'11." So he just kept saying that's how tall he was the rest of his life.
I have a group of friends that are all around the same height. They all say they are 5'11" or "about 6 feet tall". But I swear if I took out the measuring tape they would barely measure 5'10"
said on 17/Nov/15Click Here
Paul consistently looks .5 to 1 inch taller then John Lennon. Those 2 photos are not bad evidence, the first one shows their whole body and footwear and all on flat ground next to each other, the 2nd one is off to an angle but you can tell Paul is a bit taller. The more pics i look at of John, the more i think 5'9 1/2 is more realistic. Also worth looking up pics of him with 5'10 1/2 Tom Jones, Tom seems a good bit taller.
Sam said on 9/Nov/15
I'm not convinced Lennon was taller than McCartney.
FIVE NINE said on 6/Nov/15
In the past, maybe the eighties, I had read two different articles where NILSSON said John was 5'91/2".
SusanKay said on 5/Nov/15
I think the three front-line Beatles were John at just about 5'10, Paul at 5'9 and George at 5'8. If you watch the earliest videos of Beatles circa 1963 when their clothes were still ordered and paid for by Brian Epstein, you'll notice different heights of the heels of the Beatles boots. They seemed to be adjusted in order to make them all appear to be the same height when standing side by side. You'll see John's had the lowest heel, Paul's were a bit higher, and George's highest of all. This would have definitely been the kind of level of detail and precision Epstein would have insisted on for their stage image. Never noticed it back when I was 9 -- but now it's perfectly obvious.
johemoth the dog said on 4/Nov/15
Yeah, im kind of curious what that makes the rest of The Beatles now. But think it was a good idea to remove the half inch. Certainly at rare times i could see it, but after looking at alot of pictures and videos, i feel that he was more likely 5'9 1/2 - 5'10. Its really hard to tell someones height when youre guessing fractions too, since theres so many factors to weigh in. celebs that are 5'9 - 5'10 seem to bring the most debate, maybe because alot of people are in that range.
said on 3/Nov/15
Fred Seaman, John´s personal assistent wrote in his book “The Last Days of John Lennon” (1991) (page 33): “John had become preoccupied with his weight and obsessional about his diet… Once a robust man, tending toward overweight, he was now so thin that his face looked hollow and sunken in, even though it was concealed by a full beard. Standing five-feet-ten, he weighed less than 140 pounds.”
And from Robert Rosens NOWHERE MAN: THE FINAL DAYS OF JOHN LENNON (Apparently, Lennon's only triumph of will was maintaining what he felt was the ideal weight for his 5-foot-8 height -- somewhere around 135 pounds -- his weekly fasts being "one area of discipline that never broke down.")
In the book Can´t buy me love he is described as 3 inches taller than five feet seven Ringo.
This photo is a bit weird. Paul is closer to the camera but still..Click Here
said on 2/Nov/15
Rob, can you really maintain that Lennon would have been only an inch under Pete Townshend? Even if Lennon is standing looser and maybe has lower footwear I find improbable that there's only an inch difference. Also John has no noticeable height over David Bowie who you have at 5'10" and barely half an inch not 1.5 inches over 5'9" listed Art Garfunkel, Muhammad Ali towering over him & the other Beatles, etc. Could you downgrade a half inch at least? Paul & George would also need a half inch off but I find it unlikely that John was ever 5'10.5" outside of straight out of bed.
[Editor Rob: 5ft 10 is probably the most he could be on evidence.]
johemoth the dog
said on 1/Nov/15Click Here
after watching this and seeing them next to each other standing pretty straight, i think you should downgrade John Lennon. I see a good 3 inch or so height difference. Chuck Berry is listed as 6'0.5. Didnt get a good look at their shoes, but i think John has larger footwear, and still looks 3 inches shorter. Think John is more in the 5'9 range, then a strong 5'10.
said on 30/Oct/15
No way Lennon was 5'9. Pete Townshend (5'11.5) towers over him. Even Keith Moon seems to be just an inch taller... & he's listed at 5'9.
said on 12/Oct/15
Here is an interesting article called My Visit With John Lennon at the Dakota, 1978.
From the text: To my surprise, John was appreciably shorter than I was (I'm 6' 1"... John seemed to be 5' 9"), Yoko looked a bit big but Sean had recently been born so there was that.
Sam said on 12/Oct/15
Well, I agree that Lennon is over listed...I think Jagger & Brian Jones, etc. are closer to the camera & it makes them relatively taller. I wouldn't be surprised if Lennon was 2 inches shorter than Townshend, which is consistent with that pic. I've long thought Lennon, McCartney, Jagger, Clapton, Bowie all measured 5"9.5"-5'9.75" at peak, guys like Harrison, Keith Richards, Tom Petty, Elvis Costello look at half inch shorter than them so would peak around 5'9". Also can explain why guys that were not quite six foot like Townshend or Ray Davies with Bowie can look at solid 2 inches taller.
JB said on 7/Oct/15
@Sam I know right? He is substantially shorter than Pete Townsend in that photo(who is supposed to be something like 5'11.5"). I realize John is wearing flat shoes, but even still a 5'10.5" man should not look that short. I honestly believe John, and the rest of the Beatles for that matter, were in the 5'9" height range. I have yet to see any evidence to convince me otherwise.
Sam said on 1/Oct/15
Damn, Lennon looks short in that shot, you'd think Pete Townshend or Mick Jagger were considerably taller elsewhere thought Jagger and Lennon look similar height.
said on 4/Sep/15
If John was supposed to be 5'11"(or 5'10.5") then can somebody explain this photo?Click Here
How is he shorter than Keith Moon who is regularly listed as 5'9" but everyone knows he was more like 5'7"-5'8". Unless Moon is wearing 3 inch lifts I suspect John is shorter than 5'10". (Moon is on the left of Pete Townshend and Lennon is on the right)
Bandjoe said on 23/Aug/15
I think thats about accurate, i cant believe theres such diverse opinion on this, ive seen people claim anything from 5'7-5'11 as his height, I think realistically its safe to assume 5'10 maybe a little under maybe a bit over, but around that mark.
Stuboy82 said on 20/Jul/15
Not 5'10.5 without his boots.. never. John - 5'8.5
Paul - 5'9
Ringo - 5'5?
temili57 said on 18/Jul/15
When the Beatles first came out back in the 60's, their heights were published over and over again. John, Paul and George were all 5'11. Ringo was 5'8. I don't know why now on the internet there are discrepancies in their heights.
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jul/15
Rob can you add a photo and also add the Macca quote about them both being 5'10.5?
Tr27 said on 27/Jun/15
Actually, after observing several other photos, these are the Beatles' true heights:
John Lennon- 5'9.25"
Paul McCartney- 5'9.25"
George Harrison- 5'7.75"
Ringo Starr- 5'7
Sam said on 26/Jun/15
So would you consider listing John & Paul at a 5'10" peak then, Rob? Maybe 5'9.5" for George...I just think their current listings are too much of a stretch.
JB said on 24/Jun/15
None of the Beatles were over 5'10" Paul was the tallest maybe 5'10" max at peak. John and George looked about an inch shorter. They were probably 5'9"
said on 23/Jun/15
Rob, it is possible the Beatles claimed their peak heights in shoes (if not Cuban heels)? They look more 5'9.5"-5'10" peak in the case of Paul & John, both of whom appear close in height to David Bowie, Eric Clapton, Elvis Costello and Art Garfunkel (you list all but Bowie with a peak height under 5'10") and were towered over by Muhammad Ali...George could look as little as 2 to 3 inches over 5'6.5" listed Bob Dylan and only about an inch over 5'8.5" listed Tom Petty. I see Harrison as 5'9.5" max and Paul & John as 5'10" max.
[Editor Rob: in one article they all (well not ringo) had their heights at 5ft 11 at one point, probably it is realistic to believe it was a shoe height.]
lelman said on 16/Apr/15
He always looked a little shorter than Paul to me.
Sam said on 16/Apr/15
There's a lot of shots where Lennon and McCartney seem pretty close in height, sure there's a few where McCartney does look taller such as the Sgt. Pepper photos but looking at everything it's hard to see a full inch between them. Strange, a similar thing with Keith Richards and Mick Jagger, there's no question in my mind that Jagger was a bit taller but there's many pictures where they look the same height, such as the photos in Richards' autbiography.
thewonders said on 15/Apr/15
John was never 5'10". And he was always shorter than Paul (who is also not 5'10) by about an inch. And Paul was the tallest Beatle.
Art said on 5/Apr/15
When I saw him in NYC., he looked around 6 feet, but he wasn't . He used to wear big boots . I will say that he was 5'11 at the most.
kym said on 17/Mar/15
I've read that people who met him thought he was, ahem, smaller than this.
Tr27 said on 14/Mar/15
From looking at various pictures and such, I believe these are the Beatle's heights:
John Lennon- 5'9" ( Looked 3 inches taller than Ringo )
Paul McCartney- 5'9.25" ( Slightly taller than John )
George Harrison- 5'8.75" ( Slightly shorter than John )
Ringo Starr- 5'6" ( Looked it next to Peter Sellers )
5th Beatle said on 24/Feb/15
The actual rounded heights of the Beatles are listed below.
John Lennon - 5'11
Paul McCartney - 5'11
George Harrison - 5'10
Ringo Starr - 5'6
said on 25/Dec/14
Here is John and Yoko on David Frost in 1969. Click Here
In the beginning of the clip John seems 1-1,5 inch shorter than Frost. However John has low cut shoes that don´t give more than 0,5 inch. Frost has dress shoes on, giving him 0.75-1 inch. Frost in shoes seems to be around 6 feet, John about 5'10'' and none of them are standing up straight.
It gives you a hint that John was around the 5'10'' mark. 5'9'' is to short. However I do think he lost height in the late seventies of bad health. Towards the end of his life he was in a quite bad shape having emphysema and was malnourished but if he actually lost any height I don´t know, it is just my opinion. I do think it is safe to say he was 5'10''.
Sam said on 19/Dec/14
I'm not convinced that Lennon looked 0.75 in taller than Bowie, in some photos he could seem maybe 0.25-0.5 inches taller but I'm not convinced of much of any difference between them or that Lennon or McCartney were ever over 5'10" barefoot.
Christian said on 10/Dec/14
Read this a while ago. Interesting to read from people who met John in real life.
One of the foyer doors opened, and there stood ... John and Yoko. To my surprise, John was appreciably shorter than I was (I'm 6' 1"... John seemed to be 5' 9"), Yoko looked a bit big but Sean had recently been born so there was that.
Christian said on 5/Dec/14
- Dries - I don´t think John was 5'8'' more like 5'10''. - David - Yes Julian Lennon has stated his height as 5'8'' and there are two sources on Sean Lennon's height: 5'9'' and 5'7.25. Julian and Sean are about the same height.
David said on 2/Dec/14
I remember on channel 4's show early in the morning 'the big breakfast'.Zoe Ball was co presenting and talked about the beatles heights.Quite amusingly she said John Lennon was six foot one well she was being serious.What the hell does she know!Zoe Ball now iss 44 years old so she should know better about the facts of Lennon's height.In my opinion i reckon Lennon was 5ft 10 Yoko must've been pretty small say abit under 5ft or maybe 5ft.I have seen pictures of David Bowie standing beside Paul Mc Cartney backstage at Live Aid from July 13th 1985 and they look about the same height 5ft 9.5 but Bowie had an extra half an inch advantage to his then 5ft 9 height.Paul Mc Cartney in the 80's only seemed just 5ft 9 so did he lose one inch previously?John's oldest son Julian and i know this is just 5ft 8.
TJE said on 30/Nov/14
Paul: 5'10.25 peak 5'9.25 now
Dries said on 29/Nov/14
I agree with Christian: 5'8"ish or 1m73 - 1m73.50.
Watch pictures with him, Keith Richards, Eric Clapton and Keith Moon in 1968.
Sam said on 4/Nov/14
"All three Beatles in the 60s were listed as 5'11 and 5'8 for Ringo."...I believe they were that in their Cuban heels.
diavolo said on 20/Jul/14
In the 1960s the Beatles' height was given as 5'8" for Ringo, 5'11" for John and 6' for Paul and George, but that was measured in their Cuban heels/Beatle boots. Lennon continued wearing tall footwear even after their 1960s fab period ended.
Christian said on 9/Jun/14
From Robert Rosen´s Nowhere Man.
(Apparently, Lennon's only triumph of will was maintaining what he felt was the ideal weight for his 5-foot-8 height -- somewhere around 135 pounds -- his weekly fasts being "one area of discipline that never broke down.")
Mick said on 8/Jun/14
John was 5'10
Paul is 5'10.5
George was 5'9.5
Ringo is 5'6
Sam said on 5/Jun/14
Sorry, Steve I don't see a half inch advantage by Lennon over McCartney.
Steve said on 3/Jun/14
John was 5'11
Paul was 5'10.5
George was 5'10
Ringo was 5'7
Beatle performer said on 18/May/14
Paul is 5'10"
John was 5"9"
George was 5'9"
Ringo is 5'6"
Height is measured in bare feet, not wearing shoes.
Ringo is 5'6"
Spencer said on 13/Feb/14
John - 5'10
Paul - 5'10.5
George - 5'9.5
Ringo - 5'6
GP said on 22/Jan/14
John and Paul were 5'11 with the Cuban heals,So their actual size would be 5'9.5
John looked very tall in the 70's because he wore boots and higher heeled shoes that were on style in those days,just like Elvis did.
avi said on 24/Dec/13
5'10 guys.both for Paul and john.
Christian said on 26/Nov/13
I found some quites on internet from people that have met John.
"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".
“They were always amazed at how small John seemed in person.”
An Interview with Robert Rosen
lj: When you talked about John’s compulsion with his weight and his fasting, you say that he was 5’ 8’’. For over 35 years, it’s been thought that he was 5’ 11’’.
RR: I don’t believe he was that tall. There has been controversy about exactly how tall he was. And 5’ 8’’ is an educated guess based on numerous things. I tried on some of his clothes and they fit. I’m 5’ 8’’ and they fit almost perfectly. It was a very eerie experience, putting his clothing on. I thought, “he must have been my height...I’m 5’ 8’’...”
"Once a husky man, prone towards obesity, he became nearly an anorexic. John at 5 feet 10 inches, weighed only 140 pounds. Unfortunately John could not kick his chain smoking, nor the 20 cups a day espresso drinking habits".
Christian said on 29/Oct/13
I swear have seen this and I will try to find it if its possible.
MD said on 28/Oct/13
Mcfan, not sure where you're from, but when they do an autopsy in America, they measure and weigh the corpse, and John most definitely was autopsied. Now, we can be pedantic and debate whether it was a death certificate or autopsy report, but I don't doubt Christian saw this.
Christian said on 15/Oct/13
The only thing I can find about John Lennons FBI files about his height is this: Hair: Brown
However I know I saw on his death certificate years ago that his height were listed as 5'6'', really strange.
nonnel64 said on 12/Oct/13
Christian, I ment the pic of them in front of John's white RR in Titternust Estate, I can't post the link... They are not perfectly straight, but they were slightly leaning against the roller. However, Paul was supposed to be the highest, followed by John = George, and then the long-nosed smurf. However, their magnitude was not in the physical but in the masterpieces they produced together!
Sam said on 9/Oct/13
It's quite amusing that they tried to claim 5'9" for Ringo. I think its quite possible that the other 3 might have hit a solid 5'10" barefoot at peak...Ringo was close to 4 inches shorter.
zip said on 8/Oct/13
From the time when John was trying to get his green card and the FBI were trying to get him out of the country
They have him officially as 5'6 at the time when the Beatles
Were quoted as saying they were around 6 feet they were all teetering around on Cuban heels and getting carried away.
For Mc cartney's height check out the film "Give my regards to broad street.
Co star in the film. BrianBrown towers over smallie Paulie!
Crank said on 6/Oct/13
I remember as a kid having one of those many Beatles magazines. The first four inside pages were devoted to explanations about each of them, and I always remember it mentioned that Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were all 5ft 11in, while Ringo was 5ft 9in. Of course, I don't believe any of it now. At the time those Cuban heels would have added at least 1.5 inches. From the many pictures I've seen I believe Paul to be about an inch taller than John, who was a tad taller than George. I remember Ringo mentioning once in a post-Beatles interview that he's 5ft 7in. Here endeth the history lesson.
Pascal 5 10 said on 30/Sep/13
How sure are you with this listing Rob? I think 177 cm is closer, when you account for footwear.
Pete said on 23/Sep/13
I met Pete Bests brother at the Casbah and he wasnt very tall at all. Im 6 foot and he wouldve been 5'6 to 5'7. The beatles were roughly all the same height as pete best. Id estimate they wouldve all been around 5'8 tops
truth said on 14/Sep/13
I think the tallest three were 176-177cm range and Ringo 168cm.
Pascal 5 10 said on 13/Sep/13
The exact same height as Sir Paul - 5' 9.5". This listing is an inch out!
paciugo said on 7/Sep/13
he looks about 2 inches shorter than Frank Zappa at their Fillmore East concert in 1971.
stretch said on 13/Aug/13
no really fi you don't know why are you guessing?
said on 3/Jun/13
I meant to write this adress:
Rick said on 3/Jun/13
In 1973 I was at the academy awards when Paul ( escorted by a lot of LAPD cops) was being rushed to his limo. I was horrified that he was gonna get away so I reached out and yanked his hair ( sry bout that Paul) I am 5' 7" and I'd say he was 5' 9"
Christian said on 24/May/13
-Nonnel64, is this the pic you mean?
Nonnel64 said on 20/May/13
There's a famous 1969 pic of the four behind John's white Rolls...Paul is a little higher than the Rolls (few cm) and John is shorter than Paul. The car was 69 inches "tall", so was John wearin snikers and no boots, so I think he was circa 1,75 meters. A midjet
Elie said on 17/May/13
Saw Paul McCartney at a concert in Nov-12. He was wearing cuban heel shoes and was in the 6' 1" range so the 5-10 1/2 to 5-11 is pretty close considering he is 70 yrs. old. His body shape has not changed much and he moves around the stage very well. 2hrs and 50 minutes of show. Amazing, very charming man and knows how to please an audience:)
Tee said on 1/May/13
@Randy While I do think The Beatles were shorter than they claimed to be I don't think John, Paul, and George were as short at 5'7". I'd say 5'9" range is more believable. But hey, if they actually were 5'7" what would that make Ringo? 5'2"? lol
Randy said on 23/Apr/13
Peter Best 5'6" (JL 5'7" PMc 5'7.5 GH 5'7")
Check out the 'savage young Beatles' shot from 1961 leaning against Neil's van...
Bond said on 10/Apr/13
@mcfan you need to sto pgetting on people about McCartneys height really it's not a huge deal that has to be made into a big issue. Do everyone a favor and stop
Steve said on 1/Feb/13
The police once described my height and weight and got it absolutely accurate. I'd just the FBI, who are far more intelligent than your average cop, more than McCartney or anyone. So "just under 6'" is probably just that in shoes. Without shoes 5-10 1/2 seems about right, which is average height.
Mark said on 29/Nov/12
I asked Pete Best how tall they all were. He said Paul was 5'-11" back in the Hamburg days. John 5'-10". George 5'-9 1/2". And Pete said he is 5'-8". Which he does appear to be in meeting him.
J.C.P. said on 7/Nov/12
berry was more like 6´1 -- i think--
moppytop said on 14/Sep/12
I saw interview with Paul when they 1st started out and they ask him how tall he was and he said he was 5'11- but he looks did taller than that on Sgt.Pepper Album? And he looks about that in the beginning. Maybe he really was replaced?
J.C.P. said on 6/Sep/12
Probably 5'11 he really looked like it, 2 inches below Chuck Berry.
Christian said on 13/Feb/12
-mcfan. Yes that is true.
Randy said on 13/Feb/12
Check out the YouTube interview with Dick Cavett and John and Yoko. Dick is 5'3" tall and I would guess that John (wearing cowboy boots) would be around 5-6 inches taller.
mcfan said on 13/Feb/12
Why would McCartney say that he and John were both the same height if they were not?
Christian said on 10/Feb/12
There were not 1.5 inches between Lennon and McCartney. It was 0.5 inches. Lennon was 5'10'', McCartney 5'10½'' Harrison 5'10'' and Ringo 5'6''. Today Paul is just under 5'10'' and Ringo just under 5'6''.
Randy said on 30/Jan/12
Sorry – incorrect data. John's Boot size was a UK size 8 which is a US size 9. His white suit trouser size was 29 inch waist and 31 inch leg inner seam... Hope this is useful. I think perhaps 5'9" at best or around 175cm.
Godred said on 29/Jan/12
John and paul were nothing over 5`10
J.C. Parker said on 28/Jan/12
He was just as the FBI described him.. ´´Just under 6 feet tall´´ .. probably 5´11
man said on 27/Jan/12
John was only a half inch shorter than McCartney. He was at least 5.10.
Randy said on 24/Jan/12
Hey team, here is the data I have been able to accumulate, accurate or not it might be interesting. John's white suit (auctioned last year) was measured up and the following specs came to light. Waist = 29" Leg length = 30" Chest = 38". These would be considered Small to Xtra Small by todays clothing sizes. John was a junky at this time so we can assume he was quite underweight at this stage though. Some of John's Beatle boots that have be examined are a normal UK size 8 / US size 7. The Rickenbacker 325 he played was only 86cm in length and when 2 of these are stacked beside John standing straight (in 2" Beatle boots) they are taller then he is. John only weighed 72kg. Assuming a comparatively poor diet (as all Brits were rationed food after WW2 until 1954) and knowing the average height for UK men was 5'6" in the 1960's I would like to guess John was about 5'8" at best. 5'10" in 2 inch Beatle boots perhaps?
Shaun said on 20/Dec/11
He could look tallish in some of hs videos only Yoko is tiny so made him look tall. I'd have guessed 5'11-6'.
Godred said on 14/Dec/11
@Chiselhead - brick advantage is genius terminology, I`m 5`11- how many bricks is that?
Chiselhead said on 1/Dec/11
I have had my photograph taken on the doorstep in Hamburg where John was photographed. The picture of John was used on the cover of the Rock and Roll album.In the photograph of John he stands 30 bricks high, leaning slightly. He is wearing heeled boots and has a high quiff hairstyle. I am 5'7 and a half exactly and in my picture I am leaning slightly too, I have flat hairstyle and am wearing Skechers footwear which add just 1 inch. I stand 29 bricks high. I reckon the brick advantage he has on me is mostly down to his boots and quiff. I conclude he was no more that 5'8". Back then that would have been the average height for UK males. If I can figure out how to post the pictures and pixelate my face I will do so.
Martyr said on 6/Nov/11
Yep you're right about the guitar, still weird angle!
joker said on 25/Oct/11
You can't tell from that pic. Paul was very close to the camera and John was in the background. Both of them are very similar in height. Paul was probably .5 inch taller.
brotherofgurnip said on 25/Oct/11
The Rickenbacker 325 is notoriously small. (3/4 scale for fellow guitarists out there)
Martyr said on 25/Oct/11
@Christian, calculating the height of a child this way never made sense to me.
How could two brothers have very different heights for instance?
Also my father is 5'8, my mother 5'7 and I'm 6'3!
178cm is spot on for John I think, Paul was more like 179cm
Just weird angle on this picture, you can see that the guitar is also smaller than it should be.
said on 20/Oct/11
Ponder this one:
Ed's listed as 5'7.5" if I'm not mistaken, and Ringo as 5'6". With a towering 5'11" Paul next to him (probably wearing cuban heels as always). If John really was 5'10.5", how would he appear significantly dwarfed by Paul who stood little less than an inch taller (and little less than a metre away from him)?
From this picture (put into perspective), I would say 5'8.5" to 5'9".
jake, 1.82 m said on 16/Oct/11
5"10.25 (178 cm).
mikey said on 5/Oct/11
I have met Paul and he is about 5'10". Lennon was a bit shorter
jeremy said on 2/Oct/11
lenon was never close to 6ft
5ft10 flat he was really scrawny
avi said on 14/Sep/11
joker says on 29/Aug/11
Obama is 6.1 and he was at least 4 to 5 inches taller than Paul when they met earlier this year.
it was more like 3 which makes sense. Paul is 5'10 flat. he was 5'10 and change when younger.
mcfan said on 13/Sep/11
Obama is four inches taller than Paul. 3 inches taller than his prime of 5'10
joker said on 29/Aug/11
Obama is 6.1 and he was at least 4 to 5 inches taller than Paul when they met earlier this year.
willy said on 18/Aug/11
i always thought that john and paul were around 6'2 inches in height maybe because they always wear leather shoes with tall heels coz maybe too, during those days tall heels were cool!
said on 16/Jun/11
Yes Mike, that is true that John´s father "Alf" was about 5'4'' but Alf had rickets as a child and wore leg braces, which led to his growth being stunted at 5'4". He´s real height would have been 5'8''. It is not true however that Julia Stanley, (Johns mother) was 5'9'', she was 5'2''. Click Here
His father Alf would have been 5'8'' according to his doctor´s and that means: father 5'8'' mother 5'2''. Here´s how you calcualte the child´s height. You add in this case 5'8'' (173 cm) + 5'2'' (157 cm) = 330/2= 165 cm + 6,5 cm (if it´s a boy) = 171,5 cm which is 5'7½''. However John reminded even more of is grandfather Jack who stood about 5'11''.
mike said on 15/Jun/11
John had a very short dad around 5.4. He got a tall mother around 5.09. Kind of weird. He grew to be about 5.10.
Christian said on 13/Jun/11
I never heard that John claimed 5'10''. It was always 5'11''or just under 6 feet. But I agree, I think 5'10'' is more accurate.
george said on 13/Jun/11
the actual height of john's 5'10 based on his teen books from sixties
Christian said on 9/Jun/11
Yes, John was taller than his sons by 2 inches give or take.
mcfan said on 8/Jun/11
No, John was taller than both of his sons by an inch and two inches.
Christian said on 8/Jun/11
Julian Lennon is just under 5'8'' (172 cm). Sean is a tad taller at 5'8½'' (174 cm). John was taller than both of his sons at 5'10'' (178 cm.) Cynthia was about 5'3-5'3½'' (160-161 cm) in her youth and Yoko only 5'½'' or shy of 5'1'', (153-155) cm. However, Yokos father was about six feet tall and Sean has some of his genes.
Brad said on 7/Jun/11
kks has those Beatle heights from '64 right on the money.
Jennifer said on 6/Jun/11
I have no idea, but every time I see pics/video I always sense that John is a little shorter than Paul. I have an encounter someone had with John in the late 70's where the guy called John "much shorter" than he expected, and John was barefoot. Weirdly, some people give the illusion of great height. Perhaps John just knew how to stand or walk. Or maybe he wore lifts, I honestly don't know. I saw a picture of both of his sons standing next to one another and they're both the exact same height. I guess John would be somewhere around their height?
mcfan said on 24/May/11
Julian was 17 when John died, but the statement below simply isn't true. How could Julian claim to be John's height when even Harrison had 2 inches on him?
Christian said on 23/May/11
No mike, Julian was 17 years old when his father died.
mike said on 22/May/11
Julian wouldn't have known because he was only 12 when John died.
mcfan said on 5/May/11
Julian Lennon is not 5'9. He barely scrapes 5'8.
Rutlander said on 3/May/11
Well maybe somebody should tell Cynthia and Julian, because that's exactly what Julian said.
said on 2/May/11
Look at this video and still see if you see an inch between them. Go to 5:35:
Philip said on 1/May/11
According to someone I know who bought John Lennon's boots ( signed by John on the sole of the boot) at an authentic charity auction, the boots are size 8.
Ace said on 30/Apr/11
I still find it hard to believe Paul and John were the same height barefoot. Paul always edged John out by around an inch.
Christian said on 30/Apr/11
Yes I agree with mcfan. But I still think Paul was a smidgen over John. I would say Paul in his youth was 5'10½'' John 5'10-5.10.25 George 5'9.75-5'10'' and Ringo just about 5'6''. There are some diffirent sources about John´s height. According to himself he was 5'11'', according to Eliot Mintz he met in LA in 1973 "John was almost 6 feet but seemed shorter". According to the FBI files "approximently 6 feet tall" and in May Pang´s book "Loving John" 5'11''. I think someone here posted his otopsy report where he was listed as 5'6''(that is is very strange.) One of the police said that John was in a bad shape when they drove him to the hospital and that they were suprised how thin and tiny he was. Most truthful source would probably be from Yoko who actually meassured John once at 178 cm. (5'10'') John loved walking around in boots but his slim frame from mid 70's gave an illussion of him beeing taller that what he really was. A restaurant owner of one of John´s favourite restaurants said: " Every time I see a tall slim figure walking in at the door I think it is John" When John and also the rest of The Beatles had their "fat period" it is easier to tell that John was no more than 178 cm.
mcfan said on 28/Apr/11
Julian Lennon was almost 2 inches shorter than Paul and John. The quote below cannot be true. Anyway, Macca said in his own words they were the same height. And any person with a sharp eye can tell George was a smidgen under the other two.
mike said on 27/Apr/11
I just saw the early ed sullivan beatles performances and you are right. George and Paul was a little taller than John. Maybe 5 ft 9 1/2.
kks said on 27/Apr/11
The Four Beatles
Paul = 5' 11"
John = 5' 10 1/2"
George = 5' 9 1/2"
Ringo = 5' 6"
Rutlander said on 25/Apr/11
I asked Julian how tall his father was and he asked his Mum, she said he was the same height as him, 5ft 9ins. Somebody actually asked if he thought his Dad was 5ft 11ins and he laughed and said "maybe in his boots". BTW he also said BOTH Paul and George were taller then his Dad.
guyfrommars said on 23/Apr/11
Bob Dylan is 5'7", Tom Perry is around 5'8", George was 5'10". Quite enough taller than both of them.
mike said on 17/Apr/11
John was clearly taller than George and George is not a short guy. You can use George as a measuring stick because he was with us longer. You can tell George was not a short guy when he was with the traveling wilbury's. He was taller than both Tom Petty and Bob Dylan by a pretty good margin. John was around avg height at 5'10".
Will said on 16/Apr/11
John Lennon is 5'10".
Roddodg said on 9/Apr/11
Looking at many pics, it seems to me that Paul was slightly taller than John with George being shorter than John, and Ringo much shorter. I would say 5-11 for Paul, 5-10.5 for John, 5-9 for George and 5-7 for Ringo.
said on 4/Apr/11
jtm says on 10/Sep/10
why did he get upgraded?
[Editor Rob: mccartney the god spoke]
Did Paul Mcartney get in touch with you Rob?
[Editor Rob: there was a quote a few months back by mccartney about his height.]
The Insider said on 31/Mar/11
In replay to GUY on 1/Dec/10, there are no checks on height for British passports. What the owner puts on the application form when he/she applies for one is accepted. Lennon often wore boots with what looks like a 2" heel. I've looked closely when the Beatles are close together; McCartney is clearly about an inch taller than Lennon. I remember when I was a kid I had a Beatles magazine with a full profile of each where Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were quoted at 5'11" with Starr at 5'9". However, at this time they all wore Cuban heeled boots and I imagine they were providing height equality for Lennon, McCartney and Harrison. I remember a tv programme many years ago where Starr said he was 5'7". Surely they measured Lennon's height at his autopsy and recorded it on the report?
James said on 14/Mar/11
Just saw the John Lennon exhibiton at the LA Grammy Musuem and it had John's orginal colarless suit and his all white suit from the 70's. Not only was he quite short probably around 5.9-5.10 but I was really surprised how small his body frame was. I guess he was about 150 lbs. That was such a surprise since due to his enormous talent and personality you imagine celebs to be bigger than life, but his suits were really small and petite.
said on 10/Mar/11
He looks 1,80 here:
John always seemed to have more than 1.78 m. I think he was 1.80 m peak, not more than that.
Mark said on 27/Feb/11
I've met Pete Best on more than one occasion. The last time I met him I asked him their heights. He said as follows: John 5'-10": Paul was closest to 6' he said @ 5'11": George 5'-9 1/2": and himself at 5'8". So. There you have it from an Ex-Beatle !!
Gregorovich said on 25/Feb/11
A person 5'10.5" can say they are 6 foot even and be 98% correct. In the world of most americans who tend to think in terms of percentiles, percentages, odds, etc, 5'10.5" is basically 6 foot. That's how they can say it with a straight face. 98% is as good as 100% in their mind.
Ezio said on 23/Feb/11
Tom says on 19/Jan/11
I've been a Beatles fan for years, and I have a father who met all four of the lad in their prime. Here are their real heights: Ringo 5 ft 5, Paul 5 ft 10, Lennon 5 ft 10, George 5 ft 9.5
Aka here is a number I just made up for everyone.
said on 22/Jan/11
Almost every source has John,Paul and George as 5'11''. What is interesting is that Yoko actually meassured John back in the seventies as 178 cm. John always stated his height as 5'11'' and the FBI-files describes him as a approximately 6 feet tall. Paul said that they were both 5'10½'', I could go with that but I do think Paul is 5'10'' nowdays and 5'10½'' peakheight, John I belive was 5'10.25'' and later in lifte just about 5'10''. John loved his 2 inch heels and people that have met him say that he could look "slim and tall". His favorit restaurant i NY was italian called Frankie & Benny's New York Italian Restaurant & Bar and the ownwer described him as "slim and tall". Here´s an example of his boots in 1975. Click Here
vvv said on 22/Jan/11
No! John Lennon was 5 ft 11 and weighed 159 pounds
Paul was 5 ft 11 and weighed 158 pounds, George was 5 foot 11 and weighed 142 pounds, and Ringo was 5 foot 8 and weighed 136 pounds.
Tom said on 19/Jan/11
I've been a Beatles fan for years, and I have a father who met all four of the lad in their prime. Here are their real heights: Ringo 5 ft 5, Paul 5 ft 10, Lennon 5 ft 10, George 5 ft 9.5
guyfrommars said on 25/Dec/10
Lennon was 5ft10 in his prime, or rather 5ft9.5. And he loved to wear boots with heels. Even after The Beatles finished their early "mushroom heads" period (where all of them wore 2-inch Cuban heels), he could be frequently seen wearing 2-inch heeled boots.
About that "just under 6 feet" claim: in the early "Beatlemania" days all of the Beatles' height was highly exagerrated. Paul and George were described as being 6ft1, Lennon as 6ft and Ringo as 5ft9, which are all VERY generous of course.
me said on 16/Dec/10
George was 1 inch taller than tom petty, so he should be 5.9.5. Lennon was .5 taller than George, so he has to be 5.10.
me said on 16/Dec/10
George can't be 5.8 because he's taller than both bob dylan and tom petty. They all look 4 inches taller than ringo.
buddy said on 14/Dec/10
5'11 just like paul and george
ianmcg3 said on 13/Dec/10
If you go to John Lennon airport in Liverpool they have a suit that John wore in "A hard days night".... I am 5'10 and that suit is small.... so based on that suit and pictures I would say about 5'9 is a maximum for lennon
Russ said on 13/Dec/10
Both John and George look quite short anyway, so all this 5'10 crap people keep putting on here is a joke.
me said on 4/Dec/10
He is 5.10 the most. Chuck Berry was 3 inches taller than he was. McCartney said they were 5.10.5 and they was a little generous.