How tall is John Lennon

John Lennon's Height

5ft 10in (177.8 cm)

British 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"

Add a Comment 250 comments

Average Guess (32 Votes)
5ft 9.99in (177.8cm)
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.
Thanks.
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.
macfan 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:

Click Here
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.
macfan said on 20/Jul/17
still from Your Mother Should Know - same footwear and clothes:

Click Here
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
Spencer said on 20/Jun/17
178 cm
A.B. Baker said on 3/Jun/17
Are there any photos of Ringo Starr with Kurt Cobain?
macfan said on 22/May/17
Click Here
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
Peak heights:
John: 5'9.75"
Paul: 5'10.5"
George: 5'9"
Ringo: 5'6"
Jaffry jean claude said on 28/Apr/17
John 175 cm george 177 cm paul 179 cm and ringo 168 cm
Christian 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.
Click Here

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.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here

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.
mister_lennon said on 7/Mar/17
177-178.
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
Mrbadbrick said on 20/Feb/17
This pic with Keith Moon 5ft 9, and Pete Townshend 5ft 11.75
Click Here:
macfan said on 23/Jan/17
Rob,

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
macfan said on 11/Nov/16
another couple of frames:

Click Here
macfan said on 11/Nov/16
another couple of frames:

Click Here
jtm said on 29/Oct/16
Welcome back macfan!
macfan said on 28/Oct/16
Best photo out there on three Beatles - same footwear, dress, with all standing straight:

Click Here (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.
Christian 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.
Mat 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"
Mat 5'10.25 said on 19/Nov/15
also rob, what about julian lennon and sean lennon? How tall do you think they are?
Mat 5'10.25 said on 19/Nov/15
I think it's worth mentioning that Lennon was a pathological liar:

''Put simply, John Lennon made up his own life – exaggerating, embellishing, and outright lying when it suited him to do so. Usually, he did so out of pure egomania – a desire to make himself appear better than he actually was. Everyone does this to some extent, but in Lennon’s case, he rewrote almost every major event in his life to suit his tastes. He claimed he had been a working class lad from Liverpool before the Beatles; he was actually raised in a comfortable middle-class home. He denied being married during his early years of stardom. He claimed to have met Yoko Ono at an art show and their love blossomed spontaneously; in fact, Ono had stalked him for months before he gave in to her advances. He claimed to have lost interest in the Beatles due to Paul McCartney’s tendencies toward pop music and dominant role in the group, as well as his desire to do his more avant-garde work outside the band; in fact, he had all but left the band in its last two years as the result of a serious addiction to heroin. When he emerged back into the public eye shortly before his death, he claimed that he had been spending time baking bread and being a stay-at-home dad; in fact, he had been living in a drug-induced haze most of the time. The truth in all of these cases was embarrassing, but no more than the kind of behavior many rock stars acknowledged engaging in during the ‘60s and ‘70s; Lennon compulsively lied about it anyway.''

From listverse.com,10 unpleasant things about John Lennon

A guy lying about everything is going to lie about everything. Including small things, like his height.
Sizzlier said on 17/Nov/15
Click Here
Click 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.
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.
Christian 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
Sam 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/15
Click 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.
Truth 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.


Click Here
Christian 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.

Click Here
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.
JB 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
George- 5'8
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"
Sam 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
Christian 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
John; 5'10.5
Paul: 5'10.25 peak 5'9.25 now
George: 5'9.75-5'10
Ringo: 5'5.75
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
I think:

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.
zappie said on 11/Jan/14
174 cm
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

to Blond

Weight: 160

pounds

Height: Approximately

six

feet

Build: Slender

Nationality: English

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?
Christian said on 3/Jun/13
I meant to write this adress:
Click Here
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
I think that Russ has knocked it on the head. Ringo has stated that he is 5'6 ON A GOOD DAY. They were small lads by today's standards but I understand that as fans we want them to be 'larger than life'. They are big lads in our minds...

Russ says on 13/Dec/10
Paul: 5'9.5
John 5'8
George 5'8
Ringo 5'6

Both John and George look quite short anyway, so all this 5'10 crap people keep putting on here is a joke.
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
@Randy

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.
joker said on 25/Oct/11
@brotherofgurnip

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

@brotherofgurnip
Just weird angle on this picture, you can see that the guitar is also smaller than it should be.
brotherofgurnip said on 20/Oct/11
Ponder this one:

Click Here

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
@Willy
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
@Willy

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!
Christian 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
@Rutlander

Julian wouldn't have known because he was only 12 when John died.
mcfan said on 8/May/11
Click Here
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.
mcfan said on 2/May/11
Look at this video and still see if you see an inch between them. Go to 5:35:

Click Here
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
@Rutlander

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
@James

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.
Adam 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.
Klaus said on 10/Mar/11
He looks 1,80 here:

Click 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.
Christian 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
l said on 15/Jan/11
5'11
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
@Russ

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.
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
Paul: 5'9.5
John 5'8
George 5'8
Ringo 5'6

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.
GUY said on 1/Dec/10
In the recent LIFE magazine commemorating his life, the first page has three passports opened up. The first is clearly pre-Beatlemania maybe around 1961, the second around 1967, and the third around 1980. Each lists his height as 5'11". So it's clear Lennon thought of himself and referred to himself as 5'11" for quite some time.
Lester said on 12/Nov/10
There's a picture of the Traveling Wilburys standing next to each other all wearing sneekers: Jeff Lynne 5'10.5", Tom Petty 5'9.5", Roy Orbison 5'11... George holds his own in height so I'd say around 5'10, maybe 5'10.5".

Click Here
lester said on 11/Nov/10
There's a picture of Mike Love (6'1") walking with John and George... there's not a massive difference in height between them.
lester said on 11/Nov/10
Chuck Berry was 6'1" and there's picyures of them performing together... John looks very much shorter.
JG said on 8/Nov/10
I have found that John Lennon's Rickenbacker 325 overall length is 34 1/2 inches. When you compare the guitar length to him standing straight it tends to show John being about 5'9" at the most generous. I know pictures are perceptive and sometimes it has to do with angle and other things, but if you can find a picture of John try it out. I think it is pretty revealing.
Yummy Lemon said on 14/Oct/07
Don't MEN always want to seem taller/bigger than they really are???? I heard Yoko was very small just under 5 foot a child could be that small and her hands and feet look small!! I always thought John Lennon was about 5 foot 10 inches or 5 foor 11 inches. John himself said he was 5 foot 11 inches but that maybe his male ego talking!! John doesn't look short in photos to me.
Ringo looks short though and was said to have beautiful hands like a childs!! I would love to meet McCartney because he looks about the same height as Lennon to me. Ringo and Yoko look short but Yoko seems to have a big head and hair for all her brains she is very intelligent!! John Lennon to me looks like he was a husky, chunky guy who really should NOT of lost all that weight he lost in the late 1960s/1970s for his "hippy look" it was NOT healthy (with his diets, fasts and drugs) he looks better with a bit of meat on him!!!!
Chris said on 9/Oct/07
In this pic of John and Yoko the difference is about 8 inches. Click Here
Yoko who is about 5'2'' plus heels is about 5'4-5'5'' in that pic and John usually with his boots about 6 feet. I think it is pretty close to the truth to say that John was about 5'10'' give or take, although he always wrote 5'11'' and his close friend Elliot Mintz described him in a book: "John was almost 6 feet tall, but seemed shorter". So almost 6 feet would bee the 5'11'' claime and never did John stated anything else than 5'11''. However with his boots, (I have a lot of dvd:s with this man) he looked tall and slim. I saw a program about John two years ago when it was 25 years since he was killed and the owner to John´s favorite restaurant said that everytime he see a tall slim figure that enters the door, he think of John. John has been described as tall, never short. 5'10'' on the other hand is average height and I think the ones who has described him as tall were confused because of his slim figure.
Anon said on 23/Sep/07
Barb, ur basically saying if John is 5-6, so are George and Paul, and ringo must be like 5-3... NOT!

Most Beat fans know that John had a "Fat Elvis" period during Help and then the skinny hippie-guru look... i.e. he lost a lot of weight, and I'm sure lost some height along with it as well...

The best bio on him "Lennon" described him as a "lean 5-11 figure leaning at the doorway" I remember.
TJ said on 21/Sep/07
Barbara, that's ridiculous. No way was John shorter than 5'9 and he was most likely 5'10. I'm guessing you were wearing massive heels or it was a case of mistaken identity.
barbara mann said on 20/Sep/07
I met John and Yoko in Bloomingdales in the late 70's. I'm only 5'6'' and was taller than both of them. If John was 5'10'' it must have been on stilts.
Anonymous said on 12/Sep/07
john, paul and george...all about 5'8 and in their cuban heels 5'10/5'11. Ringo 5'5 and5'7/5'8 in the cuban heels. yoko is 5'1
mcfan said on 11/Sep/07
John's got a longer neck than Paul. It gives the appearance of someone shorter due to Paul's shoulders being higher, but John's eyes appear above Paul's. They look the same height to me in this video. George appears a half-inch shorter. John looks to be standing very straight for once in this video. Based on this video, what does the editor think? I don't think you'll find better evidence for John and Paul being the same height.
Chris said on 10/Sep/07
-mcfan. That is true. However 1967 was a period of heavy drugabuse, especially for John. I would say that photo of sgt peppar is just John´s bad posture. The video of your mother should know is the best evidance that reveal their true heights. Johan and Paul was very close, with half inch diffirence. Paul about 5'11'', John 5'10½''??,George didn´t look more than 5'10'' and Ringo no more than 5'7''.
mcfan said on 10/Sep/07
Click Here
mcfan said on 10/Sep/07
SGT Pepper was a very bad illustration of heights. There's too much variation in heights with the other Beatles on the cover of this album. Did he somehow shrink an 1 1/2 inches on the cover? or were they all standing on different platforms. Why is John at least Paul's height in "Your Mother Should Know" video a few months later?
Anonymous said on 8/Sep/07
John could have been 5'9½''. Look at sgt peppar
Rut said on 18/Aug/07
It maye interest you to know that Yoko Ono was described in a 1968 Life Magazine as not much bigger as 5 ft. 2 in. and 95 Ibs. as her weight.
Linda Eastman was described as quite tall in some publications.
MikeyMario said on 16/Aug/07
This is a little off. I got this John Lennon life magazine, and it has pictures of what John said for his height. He said he was 5'11, that's his real height
beatmaniac said on 16/Jul/07
I'm convinced that lennon was 5'10 barefoot as I do. Bec. when I measure my self in the morning when I wake up, I'm 5'10 1/2 and when I get home after work "stressed" I measure sometimes 5'10" or sometimes below 5'10" or 177 only.
And the fact that they are a band not only a mere band..their schedules are always tight..less sleep..plenty of stress.
Mark said on 11/Jul/07
i'm pretty sure i saw somewhere that john was about 5'9.5 (177cm) which is what i am.
beatles fan said on 29/Jun/07
I am a huge fan of the Beatles and of John especially. I have seen hundreds of pictures of John and he could look anywhere between 5'9" and 6'0". I know that height can vary quite a bit depending on footwear and posture. As a Beatle he would have been extremely tired sometimes and would have appeared shorter. Other times you see him wearing cuban heels and walking tall looking very relaxed. He does strike me as someone who was a deep thinker and wasn't really that bothered about his height generally.
glenn said on 12/Jun/07
garfunkel is around 6ft.maybe 5-11.
mcfan said on 11/Jun/07
Does anyone know Garfunkel's height? He looked slightly taller than Lennon.
Michael said on 6/Jun/07
You guys make me feel less freakish about myself for knowing so much stuff about Beatle things.
Chris said on 29/May/07
I´m sorry, it was not translated correct in the swedish version. Elliot wrote that "John was almost 6 feet tall, but seemed shorter".
Chris said on 17/May/07
Elliot Mintz describes John as almost 2 meters in the book "Memories of John Lennon"
mcfan said on 16/May/07
Check out the Beatles Unseen Archives. Check out pgs 32, 157, 218, 236-38. Based on these photos, John is no doubt taller than George and is roughly the same height as McCartney. I still say John is no taller than 5'10 barefoot since this is what Yoko measured him at. May Pang even said he was 5'9.5. So with that information and these photos, you could conclude that Lennon/McCartney were 5'10 barefoot in their prime and George at roughly 5'9.5. Not only does Lennon crouch in many photos, but he leans a significant amount as well. Only when he stands straight do you see he was Paul's height.
Brad said on 12/May/07
Sean is polite, real polite. Jagger was skin & bones in '81, I wouldn't doubt 125. I saw Cavett on Fifth Avenue once, 5' 6" is generous.
Chris said on 10/May/07
I bought the dvd when Lennon and Yoko was on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971. Dick Cavett is listed as 5'6''but looked even shorter. When 5'6½'' Shirley MacLaine was on at the same time as Joha and Yoko, Shirley towered over Cavett. She wore 2-3 inch heels, looking about 5'8'' John towered even more over Cavett looking 6 feet. When Sherley and Johan shooke hands it was about 3 inches diffirence between them. John had some black boots on and in barefeet he could have been 5'10''. Even 5'11''. This is pic with 5'10½ Michael Crawford and John from How I won the war. Click Here
Beazer Holmes said on 7/May/07
many of the key Brits from the invasion period seemed to be in the 5-9 to 5-10 range (Jagger, Lennon, McC, Harrison, Clapton, et al). Slightly built though, so maybe appeared taller (saw jagger up close at concert 10 years or so ago and surprised at how slight/small he appeared. Remember reading the famous article before the 81 tour where he said "I'm only 125 lbs..." which would fit with a 5-9 and change height and small frame...
Chris said on 5/May/07
He sounds very nice, I bet he has the same sence of humor as his father.
Brad said on 4/May/07
About 5' 9" for Sean. Didn't sign autographs, he said "his mother was waiting" with a smile.
Chris said on 3/May/07
Brad-How tall would you say Sean is?
Brad said on 2/May/07
5' 10" right next to me in Jan. '77. Yoko was 5' 3" then and I met her last week at a Sean show: still 5' 3".
Anthony said on 23/Mar/07
AS, no way was John a 5'9 max. I think he was at least 5'10. Again look at the "Two Virgins" cover when they're barefoot and naked.. There's no way John is only 6-7 inches taller than Yoko. She barely bakes chin level and John is even standing with proper posture. Unless, Yoko is shorter than the 5'2-5'3 range, I cann't see John as any shorter than 5'10-5'11.
mcfan said on 22/Mar/07
Yeah, I agree with AS that the Beatles were shorter than people think. However, John was barefoot 5'10 according to that museum note. I do remember May Pang saying he was 5'9.5 though and there's no doubt John, Paul, and George were probably within a half-inch of each other. George looked the shortest of the three and Paul the tallest by a very small margin. Well, we all know McCartney is shorter than Tom Jones by at least a half-inch and Tom's only 5'10 today. I don't dispute Lennon/McCartney at 5'11 in sneakers back then.
glenn said on 22/Mar/07
i always said and heard from people who knew him that he was 5-.its only recently ive been seeing 5-10 in pics.
AS said on 20/Mar/07
John Lennon was more like 5'9", tops. Muhammad Ali is was 6'3" and the famous pics of the beatles with Ali, Ali is clearly 2/3 of a head taller than John, Paul and George, about 6 inches or more, and they all have flat beach loafers on and Ali has flat boxing shoes on. Joe Frazier was listed at 5'11.5" and was only about 1/3 of a head shorter than Ali. I just stood next to Frazier for a picture last night. He's shrunk quite a bit over the years. I'm 5'11" and I'm now taller than him. I would trust boxing's height measurements. That being the case, I'd say John was 5'9", and 5'11" with boots on.
Chris said on 13/Feb/07
I´ve met Yoko and she had high heels on looking 5'6'', I think somewhere around 5'3'' is possible and John was 5'10''-5'11''.
BEAT MANIAC said on 12/Feb/07
So if Yoko is 5'2-5'3..John is 5'10...because I have a photo of me and my girl and she's above my chin..she's 5'2 same as yoko..and I'm only 5'10..both of us where barefoot on a flat level ground..but not nude! ha ha ha.
Glenn said on 10/Feb/07
Yeah,he does look 5-11 on that cover.thats about right on Yokos height.as for the museum,you hear all kinds of stories.inflated heights,accurate,publicist heights.
Anthony said on 10/Feb/07
Yoko's 5'2-5'3.
BEAT MANIAC said on 9/Feb/07
Hi Glenn, another question...does the wax museum of madame tussaud's are accurate in making the height of the beatles? thanks!
BEAT MANIAC said on 8/Feb/07
what is the height of Yoko Ono?
Anonymous said on 8/Feb/07
i once went to the dakota and saw him , we had a little chat and if i remember well he was taller than me but wearing boots.im 5´11´´
Anonymous said on 8/Feb/07
i once went to the dakota and saw him , we had a little chat and if i remember well he was taller than me but wearing boots.im 5´11´´
Anthony said on 7/Feb/07
I think John was at least 5'10.5, maybe 5'11. Look at the cover of the "Two Virgins" album. John and Yoko are standng barefoot and naked. Yoko comes up just under his chin.
mcfan said on 29/Jan/07
Julian Lennon was only 5'8. He was actually closer to Ringo than to John, Paul, or George. Also, Lennon was 159lbs not Paul or George during the early days. I think they had Paul and George at 140lbs. I think Ringo was 5'7.
BEAT MANIAC said on 29/Jan/07
I agree to that, they're all at same stature, i have a collection of there rare photos..but I noticed one photo, I had a photo of George Harisson wearing a flat leather shoes with her was Patti Boyd and Ringo Starr, I've notice that Ringo was wearing the cuban boots and beside with him is George Harrison, they have almost the same height on that photo, I think Glenn was right..He was 5'10" in his youth, because 5'8" + 2 inches cuban boots = 5'10". I think you have seen that photo too...they are with Peter Asher of Peter and Gordon.
Geoff said on 28/Jan/07
According to their bios from 1964, Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison were all 5-11 and Ringo was 5-8. While performing and standing together, Paul, John, and George looked nearly identical in stature. Their weights were 159 John, 158 Paul, and 142 George.
Glenn said on 25/Jan/07
I saw Paul look 6ft in dress shoes in 2000.so he is 5-11,maybe 5-11.5 in his youth.I heard Lennon was 5-9.but appears closer to 5-10 to me.his sons are around 5-9.Ringo was 5-6 in his youth.5-5 now.George was 5-9 when I met him.5-10 in youth.sounds like they claim their heights in shoes.
BEAT MANIAC said on 24/Jan/07
Hi Glen, I know you've met many actors and actresses..for sure you can tell there heights thru photos, my question is..does the beatles measure their height "BARE FOOT" or with heels on? because I remember John Lennon saying in an interview that he is below 6 ft... Because I'm 5'10" bare foot and with shoes like sneakers..I'm 5'11" but with boots on...I'm 6ft.
Anonymous said on 16/Jan/07
George wasn't fully grown in many of the photos, he's the youngest Beatle and was still a teenager when the Fab4 started getting popular.. John might have experienced a little shrinkage due to drugs and macrobiotic vegan diets. He certainly lost a lotta weight between 64-80.
wunther tyers said on 27/Dec/06
Paul and john looked similar in the height...but some pictures in Hamburg showed a slight difference between George & the rest (looked slightly short)
Data info about Beatles heights and clothes size I found in archive section of:
Click Here
Glenn said on 3/Dec/06
So did I Cherry.but most say 5-10.and he does look it alot.
Cherry said on 2/Dec/06
I always heard, from reliable sorces, that he was 5'8.
mcfan said on 16/Nov/06
Chris,

Good picture with Jones and Lennon! Jones like McCartney has good posture. Does anybody have footage of Ready Steady Go? I agree that Jones was 5'11 in his prime but 5'10 now. Rich Little was taller than him (jones) on his show who I think was 6ft. Fred Willard was certainly taller than him but he was probably 6'2.
Glenn said on 7/Nov/06
Tom they saw mightve been 6ft strectched out in his prime.he appeared 5-11 to me.
mcfan said on 3/Nov/06
I agree with Dries that Clapton and Richards were just a tad taller than Lennon on Rock N Roll Circus. However, with Richards he was wearing shoes with heels if my memory is right. Clapton was wearing sneakers like Lennon. Harrison and Lennon look shorter than they really were due to their bad posture...especially Lennon who hardly ever stood up straight. If you want a pretty clear picture of their heights check out Magical Mystery Tour "Your Mother Should Know" video where they wear the same shoes and are standing next to each other. You'll get a different impression of Lennon's height for sure. Photos like Abbey Road are simply not clear enough as the street is uneven. In all of the photos I've seen that are clear where you can see their feet, Lennon is extremely close to McCartney and Harrison maybe 1/2 -3/4 inch behind McCartney. My knowledge tells me that years ago Jagger was just taller than McCartney when they were doing "All You Need Is Love." Also, Tom Jones was taller than McCartney and Lennon on Ready Steady Go. McCartney even appeared with Jones later on where he again is taller than McCartney.

Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.

Other vital statistics like weight, shoe or bra size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.

Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.