How tall is Paul McCartney

Paul McCartney's Height

5ft 9 ½ (176.5 cm)

Peak height was 5ft 10 ¼ (178.4 cm)
English Singer from The Beatles and Wings. In a interview he said regarding the film Nowhere Boy, "I've not seen it yet. I saw some early rushes of it and the whole thing came off well. But I want to tell Sam Taylor-Wood off as I hear that my character is not as tall as John - I'm not having that! Both of us are 5ft 10 and a half!". In an early Tiger Beat it also gave his weight as 159 pounds, Chest 39 inch, Waist 32 inch, 15.5in Collar and shoe size 8.5.

Photos by PR Photos

You May Be Interested

Height of John Lennon
John Lennon
5ft 10 (178 cm)
Height of George Harrison
George Harrison
5ft 10 (178 cm)
Height of Ringo Starr
Ringo Starr
5ft 6 (168 cm)
Height of Elvis Presley
Elvis Presley
5ft 11 ¾ (182 cm)

Add a Comment680 comments

Average Guess (113 Votes)
Peak: 5ft 10.4in (178.8cm)
Current: 5ft 9.41in (176.3cm)
Robby Harris said on 5/Sep/23
5'10" or 5'10.25" in his prime is believable. I can believe he measured 5'10.5" earlier in the day, so it's still an honest claim.
Robby Harris said on 4/Sep/23
Paul looked a little taller than 5'10" George Harrison in 1964:

Click Here

They both have the same shoes on.

Paul could still pull off looking a weak 5'10" with 5'11.5" Jimmy Fallon in 2013:

Click Here

Paul with 5'10" Rudy Giuliani in 2001-2002:

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here

He already seemed to be dropping some height by the early aughts and did not look quite as tall as Giuliani by then. Both men were pushing 60 at the time.
Robby Harris said on 4/Sep/23
Paul McCartney with 5'9" Michael Jackson in the early 80s:

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

Paul looks about an inch taller, placing him at about 5'10". Some photos have them looking of similar height, which may be explained by footwear discrepancies on some occasions. He did appear to be the tallest Beatle and was slightly taller than John and George, so I would say a solid 5'10" is fair for Paul. I don't buy 5'10.5" though.
Robby Harris said on 3/Sep/23
Paul McCartney with 5'9" Michael Jackson in the early 80s:

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

Paul looks about an inch taller, placing him at about 5'10". Some photos have them looking of similar height, which may be explained by footwear discrepancies on some occasions. He did appear to be the tallest Beatle and was slightly taller than John and George, so I would say a solid 5'10" is fair for Paul. I don't buy 5'10.5" though.
Robby Harris said on 3/Sep/23
Paul looked a little taller than 5'10" George Harrison in 1964:

Click Here

They both have the same shoes on.

Paul could still pull off looking a weak 5'10" with 5'11.5" Jimmy Fallon in 2013:

Click Here

Paul with 5'10" Rudy Giuliani in 2001-2002:

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here

He already seemed to be dropping some height by the early aughts and did not look quite as tall as Giuliani by then. Both men were pushing 60 at the time.
5'7 and a fraction said on 3/Apr/23
@James (179cm) Jones

I highly doubt Paul shrunk from 5'10 1/2 to 5'9 3/4 in his 50s.
James (179cm) Jones said on 30/Mar/23
5'10 ¼ or 5'10 ½ in his peak (18 to 50)
5'10 ⅛ or 5'9 ¾ in his 50s
5'9 ½ in his 60s
5'9 ⅛ or possibly 5'9 ¼ ish now
Sandy Cowell said on 24/Mar/23
I couldn’t believe that Darragh Ennis didn’t get the answer to the 1976 chart hit ‘Silly Love Songs’, or rather, which band sang it. It was Wings, of course, and the flip side was ‘Let ‘em In’.

I bought the single. 💿👧

5ft10.5 peak and an inch less today for Paul.
5'7 and a fraction said on 14/Mar/23
Paul = 5'10 1/4 - 1/2
John = Solid 5'10
George = Weak 5'10
Ringo = Solid 5'7
5'7 and a fraction said on 14/Mar/23
@Viper Agreed.
viper said on 13/Mar/23
My 84 year old Uncle is 5-8 so that helps.

A lot of it with older folks is posture, not any shrinkage
5'7 and a fraction said on 12/Mar/23

Age related height loss is definitely exaggerated on here. A lot of people here seem to automatically assume people in their 40s - 50s are already losing half an inch which is just inaccurate. Their will be the odd occasion of course but that doesn't mean that's the case for everyone else. My 6'1 Grandad hasn't lost more than 1.5 inches in height. Sometimes he can still appear 6'0 when standing tall.
viper said on 1/Mar/23
He looks to have shrunk an inch, not 2.

My 5-8 84 year old Uncle still hasn't shrunk any.

My 75 year old dad still hasn't shrunk any
Danimal said on 28/Feb/23
5'10.5" in his prime. Today at 80 years old he would have lost 2" (average height loss for an 80 year old male), putting him at 5'8.5" in 2023.
Sandy Cowell said on 28/Dec/22
I’ve been playing Wings’ C Moon over Christmas. It’s Paul’s track of the week.

5ft10.5 peak and an inch less today. 🎼🎶
Sandy Cowell said on 3/Oct/22
I still enjoy Paul’s late wife, Linda McCartney’s vegetarian dishes; she made some splendid veggie sausages!
Sandy Cowell said on 3/Oct/22
So Paulie was a little taller than Georgie-boy’s peak height! I remember when Paul performed with Kylie Minogue one New Year. He literally picked her up, and yes, he looked very tall next to her!

Peak - 5ft10.25 and 5ft9.5 today.
Cerph said on 14/Aug/22
If you look at the "Abbey Road" album cover, you'll see Paul walking barefoot, and being approximately the same height as John and George- (who are wearing shoes). Ringo's wearing shoes with heels- (and probably lifts). It helped balance out their height differences.
5'10 Dude said on 10/Aug/22
I wonder how tall his first wife Linda was. Online she's listed as 5'9, but that can't be right because in photos she looks several inches shorter than Paul. She even appears a little bit shorter than Ringo so 5'6 seems more likely if anything.
Christian said on 18/Jun/22
Looking at the shoes he is wearing onstage I think is adding at least 1.5- 1.75 inch. Here is a clip when Paul is leaving one of his shows. Is he still 5.9.5 would you say Rob?

Click Here
Editor Rob
Those are at least 1.5 inch heels, maybe a bit, has he shrunk under 5ft 9.5? I'm not sure.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 15/May/22
I’m watching a programme on Sky Arts about the band The Moody Blues.

I’ve just learnt that Denny Laine from Paul’s group Wings, played with the Moody Blues in the 60s.

Well, I never knew that!

Peak height: 5ft10.5 and today: 5ft9.75.
Ian Vector said on 12/May/22
It looks like Paul got noticeably taller sometime between 1965 and 1967. Maybe it's just the shoes he wears...

Either way, 5' 10.5" peak, 5. 9.5" current height.
mannev said on 12/Mar/22
I saw the Get Back special also. Paul looked the tallest of the 3 guitarist, by about 1 inch. But he had thick heeled shoes on 99% of the time, giving him 1 to 2 inch height increase. He likes his shoes, lol. The other 2, wore sneakers.
Dipiazzaterry said on 30/Nov/21
Just watched the “Get Back”. 7 plus hour special on Disney. The is a scene of Paul and John together where Paul is wearing flip flops and he is at least two inches taller than John. Honestly think Paul could have been peak 5ft 11.5
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 1/Nov/21
🐸 I woke up with the song 'We All Stand Together' on my mind, so I watched the video.

🐸 It shows Paul opening one of his childhood 'Rupert the Bear' books, and looks at the frogs, who are singing at playing musical instruments. Some are big and fat, and others little more than tadpoles, but fully formed frogs nonetheless. Collectively, they are known as 'The Frogs Chorus'.

Paul must have been a great Dad, as we can see by the success of his children. (I still think designer Stella needs a page.... 😀👗) He still is to his four kids, fatherhood being a 'job' for life.

🐸 What a lovely message that song sends out!

Peak height - 5ft10.5; today - 5ft9.5).
ADAM VARCO said on 27/Oct/21
Peak 180.3 cm
Current 176 cm
viper said on 18/Oct/21
For whatever reason Bond was above it
Ian C. said on 15/Oct/21
Actually, Viper, the appreciation of music is pretty diverse in people in general, even discounting age. I don't understand why people like Bach or Charlie Parker. It's not that I don't feel much when I hear their music, it's that it actually irritates me. I don't worry about it. When you do feel joy when you hear a piece of music, don't worry about why you do. Just be glad you do.

But the indifference to and in fact disdain for the Beatles among the middle-aged was striking. In the movie Goldfinger, James Bond says, serving Dom Peringnon at the wrong temperature is "like listening to the Beatles without earmuffs." When I heard that line I thought, wow: James Bond is an idiot. Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to give somebody that stupid a loaded gun and a license to kill
viper said on 7/Oct/21
Billie has some real talent.

Bieber is just so so.

The age thing is an excuse imo
Ian C. said on 5/Oct/21
A fascinating exercise is, google up the earliest reviews by then-contemporary American music critics of the Beatles from 1964. Most of the reviews (by middle aged critics) are either dismissive of the Beatles as musicians, or even aggressively hostile. The champion idiot was William F. Buckley who wrote, "The Beatles are not merely awful, I consider it sacrilegious to say that they are anything less than godawful."

When the Beatles hit in 1964 I was twelve, and listening to any of their songs was like having joy poured into my ears. My parents, whom I had hitherto understood to be wise in all ways, didn't much like them. What I think is, as we age, our capacity to take joy from music degrades. Certainly, I have no clue why people like Billie Eilish or Justin Bieber, but I do have enough brains to understand that they are great musicians, based on how much young people like them. I can't hear it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Ian C. said on 1/Oct/21
I wonder how Paul feels about the common belief that the Beatles "changed the world." The only real cultural influence they had that I can see is that they changed men's hairstyles. They did a lot to put brylcreem out of business, but that's about it.

Bob Dylan altered the course of Western Civilization, by producing insights into the nature of human existence that resonate with us still. He is the cultural father of the Civil Rights Act, and played a deciding role in ending the War in Vietnam. Also, Dylan is at least six foot three.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 21/Jun/21
Now it's Paul McCartney's turn and they are playing 'Silly Love Songs' from 1976. I bought it, and the B side was 'Let 'Em In', an inferior version of which is used to advertise the lottery. (Actually, I think it was a double A sided single....)

5ft10.5 peak and 5ft9.5 now. I should have given John Lennon over 5ft10!
Ian Vector said on 18/May/21
5' 9.75", 5' 10.75" peak.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 18/May/21
@ Tall In The Saddle - I'm listening to Paul McCartney right now and very nice he is too!

The track is C Moon and my Dad and I loved this. We'd sing it together! What's it's all about indeed? 🤫

Top height - 5ft10.5
Now 5ft9.5
gp said on 27/Apr/21
The beatles wore cuban boots in the early years the heels were at least 2 inches high so they except Ringo did look and were 6 feet but thanks to the heels
gp said on 27/Apr/21
The beatles wore cuban boots in the early years the heels were at least 2 inches high so they except Ringo did look and were 6 feet but thans to the heels
Tall In The Saddle said on 14/Apr/21
I used to be a Lennon guy but now consider Macca to have been clearly more talented.

Certainly, Macca's songs were covered far more (Yesterday # 1 across all writers) which apparently was a problem for Lennon. Having your song covered isn't necessarily the be all and end all though. There are still GREAT songs which can only be sung by the original artist or, at least, sound best by the original artist. Lennon's music was often heavy with his own personal signature. Similar to artists like, say, Johnny Cash and Sting to name two.

At any rate, together, John and Paul were always so much more than the sum of their individual parts. IMO, while Macca wrote better songs post BEATLES neither he nor Lennon wrote anything as sublime as the stuff they wrote as THE BEATLES. Even if one or the other wrote a song essentially on their own while in THE BEATLES, I think in some way, shape or form, including their simply being competitive, their time together and influences upon each other, conscious or sub conscious, drove them to their greatest heights. Perfect and sometimes volatile chemistry.

It's often said RINGO was lucky to be in the band and go along for the ride. RINGO was actually an excellent drummer who was sought after by THE BEATLES but in the early days they couldn't afford him until more money began rolling in. RINGO also had his own brand of charisma. IMO, RINGO always finds some measure of success with or without THE BEATLES but likely never to the degree he did in fact enjoy with THE BEATLES. Then again, that conclusion could probably hold for all members, including Paul and John, such was the insane success of THE BEATLES. There was also the "Fifth" BEATLE, George Martin, who made no mean contribution to the quality of music the BEATLES were churning out.

Brian Wilson of THE BEACH BOYS has to be given credit for the fact he wrote and arranged on his own and there was a nice, competitive dynamic going on between the two B bands, pushing them each to try and out do the other. For one example, that's why we have CALIFORNIA GIRLS vs the Beatles reply: BACK IN THE USSR. Win win for music fans.

Anyway, what type of success would Lennon himself have enjoyed otherwise if he never hooked up with Paul, George and Ringo? Impossible to answer but interesting to muse upon.
Shushie said on 10/Feb/21
It's true about celebs being larger than life on TV, etc. I remember seeing Robert Wagner shooting his TV series in the 70's. Always thought he was a tall guy. He wasn't! Looked about 5'8" instead of almost 6'. With the Beatles we always thought JP&G were close to 6'. Paul looks the same height as Nancy, his wife. Sometimes shorter if she's wearing heels.
Patdancer said on 25/Jan/21
Watch the Beatles in Blackpool vid. If they were all wearing the same foot-gear, Paul has about 2" on John, an inch on George, & around 5" on Ringo. Paul, maybe 5'10"---Ringo 5'5".
Tall In The Saddle said on 18/Nov/20
My impression always was that Macca had the edge on Lennon in height with Harrison standing somewhere within the gap between Paul and John. So, in order, Paul, George, John and.....Ringo! Dunno about former drummer Pete Best.
gary69 said on 18/Nov/20
I always thought John was slightly taller than Paul.
Damon Albarn said on 7/Nov/20
90% of celebrities lie about their height but it's not the case of Paul, I think he's pretty honest about his height, during the Beatles days he always looked like a decently tall guy, slightly taller than Lennon and Harrison which both looked about 5'10, and he edged Ringo Starr who was 5'7 in his prime.
They also wore cuban boots which gave them around 4-5 cm of height, that's why Paul could look almost 6ft when he was young, I always had the impression that he was a quite tall guy (look at the Sgt.Pepper's cover). Nowadays although he's almost 80 he still gives the impression of being a decently tall man (look at the video of the premiere of Eight Days a Week where he's on the blue carpet with Ringo, he's wearing similar boots to the ones he used in the Beatles), he might have lost an inch due to his age but still gives that above average/tallish impression.
Tommy P said on 17/Aug/20
I've studied the Beatles heights. Believe it or not all 3 Paul, John, and George were only 5'8". Sounds crazy right? Saw a picture of Paul & wife Nancey walking in NYC. They had same footwear on, on level sidewalk. They were identical in height. and Nancy lists her height at 5'7". More recent is Paul doing the Car Pool Karioke thing with that guy James Corden, when they go to Pauls old house, standing next to each other, they are same height. James Corden lists his height at 5'8". I always thought that the Beatles were taller. I knew someone who always saw them at the Cavern, they said no more then 5'8". That goes for Mick Jagger, Keith too. Celebrities always lie about their age and height. I was disapointed myself to lear this, its funny, whenever I talk to someone who actually met the Beatles in person, they always say, their alot shorter in real life.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 13/Aug/20
There's a question on 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?' right now as to which Beatle was walking barefoot on the zebra crossing on their 'Abbey Road' album cover. I knew it to be Paul McCartney because I'd noticed that he looked a little bit shorter than he oughtta and when I looked, I saw that he'd 'forgotten to put his shoes on!' (My words as a primary school kid).

Then later, as I began showing an interest in height, I thought he's definitely not as tall compared to the others, as shown on this famous picture, rubbing in yet again his lack of footwear.

Who says it isn't advantageous to show an interest in height? That question was worth £125,000, and not even the phone-a-friend got it right. All the Beatles were mentioned, except for Paul! 👅😂

5ft10.5 peak
5ft9.5 now 😄👍🎶🎵🎧
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 18/Jun/20
🎂🎶🎁🎈 Happy Birthday Paul! 🎈🎁🎶🎂

Many Happy Returns of the Day to Paul McCartney, who celebrates his 78th Birthday today. Have a wonderful family occasion, Paul, and (apologies for the old cliché!) "THANK YOU FOR THE MUSIC", which I was listening to when I was young enough to run around in the garden in the nuddy without getting arrested!

5ft10.5 peak and an inch less today. 😁

Keith 5'10 said on 7/Jun/20
I can see half inch between him and Harrison on this photos:
Click Here
Great session tho, all 4 beatles with flat shoes and with Ali!!
McCartney looks clearly taller than Harrison and Lennon.
Sandy A Cowell said on 11/Apr/20
There was a question just now on which Soap Opera Wings recorded the theme tune. I knew it was “Crossroads”, but I thought it was the Beatles! So I got the question on the Chase half right! 🤪

5ft10.5 peak
5ft9.5 now
Kirby said on 26/Jan/20
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.
RichardSpain said on 7/Jan/20
More or less 179 cm when he was young.

Now in 177/178 zone .

Ringo Starr 170 young 168 nowadays

John lennon 178cm
Goeorge Harrison 177 peak 175 nowadays
Zeyfro said on 15/Oct/19
Hey Rob, how tall do you think Paul was at 16? Paul always looked the same height as John, even in the earlier days, even though John was 2 years older...
Editor Rob
I am not sure about their 16-18 years unfortunately.
Yang (5 footer 8, 173) said on 6/Oct/19
Peak Height : 5ft 10 (177cm)
Current Height : 5ft 8 and half (174cm)...
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 15/Sep/19
Funny that! Two of Paul's children, James and Stella, have Birthdays on consecutive days! Had that happened to my Mum, we would have been in the brown stuff for the double expense! For her it was my brother's Birthday, 9 days later Christmas and a month later, my Birthday, and that was bad enough, so she started Christmas shopping in July! 😂

I don't think Paul has that worry!

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 12/Sep/19
It's Paul's son James's birthday today. He turns 42 and is also a singer.

🎂🎁 Happy Birthday James!🎂🎁

Dad gets 5ft10.5 peak and an inch less today.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 20/Aug/19
I just had the sudden urge to listen to 'Mary Had A Little Lamb', so I joined a music situation which, no doubt, is a ****ing rip off unless you use it all the time!

I also heard 'C Moon'. That takes me back somewhat!
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 28/Jul/19
All the Beatles were renowned for their terrific and quick-witted humour. Well, just this morning, I found that Sir Paul has honoured Rowan and Stephen for their part in Blackadder! What wonderful news! There was a picture of the three guys together, and others besides, and Paul's 5ft9.5 looked rather diminutive in comparison to Stephen, and Sir Paul looked a fair chunk shorter than Rowan too. But he'll have known that anyway, and he gives not a jot, and why should he? He's Rock Royalty!

I'm listening to the Beatles again....

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 23/Jul/19
Just this morning, I was watching an advert for the Beatles' Double White Album. I got so into it that I ordered a copy. I know all the music of course - I used to listen to it with my friend Nick when I was 19 and he was 18. (It was his copy, and he used to listen to my Steve Hillage's album Live Herald in return!)

Anyway, I thought that if I order the Beatles' Double White, which comes today, then my TV WILL arrive! Just two hours later, I had a text to be on guard as from 12.16 - 1.16, for it is then that my TV will arrive. Paul is my good luck charm today, that's for sure!

5ft10.5 peak
5ft9.75 now
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 20/Jun/19
🎁🎂🎈 Birthday Greetings Paul! 🎈🎂🎁

Wishing Paul a very Happy Birthday, even if it be 2 days late! You've rocked my world since I was an infant, and playing in the nude in my garden, giving the Beatles stickers to the teenagers in the alleyway! 😉
Myview said on 8/Jun/19
Rob, did Paul grow a lot after 22 years old? I think 2 inches...
Editor Rob
I would be surprised if he did, but in early beatles footage, I do still think he seemed tallest compared to John.
mrguy said on 4/Jun/19
If Wacko Jacko is 5'9" Paul & John are probably 5'9.5" peak height IMO. Pics when they are surely on equal footing & footwear Paul just edges out MJ by a little bit.
Dom P said on 15/Mar/19
Hello again. A friend and I were looking at the american Hey Jude cover, a 2nd time. I have an original, my older cousin gave me years ago. The photo was taken on a bit of an angle for the front cover, closer to Ringo, Paul, George, and then John Lennon in that order. All standing, lined up. Paul is wearing the thickest heels as revealed on the back cover. So J, P, and G, all standing straight which is rare for George and sometimes John. Paul & George exactly the same height but Paul has the heels and the bias of the camera shot. We really doubt Paul was ever 5'10", ever. John looks a bit shorter than the other two, but he is slightly further from the camera. Having said all that. Ringo is the shortest of course, but looks the coolest, not standing straight in my opinion.
DomP said on 19/Feb/19
Perfect Paul, sorry I have to disagree with some of what you have said. The Hey Jude cover clearly shows Paul M and George H, the same exact height. The camera shot was perfect, no angles to benefit anyone. George H's hair is very flat and still looks the same as Paul M. Paul M has larger heels on, as well. John L, looks shorter than the other two, but seems to be slouching a little. "AD" makes a good point about Paul M's high set shoulders. That can trick the eyes, of the beholder.
AD said on 17/Feb/19
@Perfect Paul … you're right, I met him when he was 44 and he was 5ft 9.5, possibly 177cm, I could see by a photo I had taken with him ...what makes him look taller (and why people think he was taller than John and George) is his shoulders are high set and quite broad, gives him a taller appearance when he stands up. I agree that he looks virtually the same height now.
Perfect Paul said on 15/Feb/19

Could someone who's looked after themselves; plenty of exercise, good diet, yoga, etc - have lost only 0.5" by their 70s?

I say this because if you look at the overall evidence, Paul's height seems to have hardly changed over the years. People say he wears big heeled boots now - but not most of the time. He used to wear the cuban heels / Beatle boots in the 1960s anyway.

He still looks 5' 9.25" (176 cm) today at age 76! Close enough to that 5' 9.75" he's looked for most of his career!

Editor Rob
The minority would lose 1/2 inch by 70, the majority closer to an inch.
Perfect Paul said on 15/Feb/19
Paul consistently looked only 5' 9.5" in his 40s and 50s, which seems too early for half-inch shrinkage.

Paul Weller (5' 10.5-11"), David Bowie (5' 9.75"), Bruce Springsteen (5' 9.5"), Johnny Depp (5' 9"), Noel Gallagher (5' 8.25") - all making Paul look 5' 9.5" absolute tops. I could go on and on...

1990s Paul looked only 5' 9.5".

Have you noticed this, Rob?
Editor Rob
At times he looked 5ft 9.5 and 10 I feel early 90's.
Perfect Paul said on 14/Feb/19
Dom P,

I thought the same as you regarding the Hey Jude photo. I think the camera angle favours Paul and George slightly more than John though.

But on overall evidence, Paul and John edge George by a tiny fraction - 0.25 inch. So to the untrained eye, they were all basically the same height.

I agree that Paul wasn't the tallest Beatle. I used to think he may have edged it, as Rob's listing suggests. But I've seen enough now to say that him and John were dead level.
Dom P said on 13/Feb/19
Rob, I have to totally disagree with "Perfect Paul" postings. When all 3 front line Beatles are standing straight, P McCartney is not the tallest. Harrison and Lennon have poor posture at times, OK. The US Hey Jude Album clearly shows McCartney and Harrison, exactly the same height. Lennon looks slightly shorter. All standing straight. P McCartney has the largest heels on, as shown on the back cover. Case closed.
Perfect Paul said on 11/Feb/19
I think at least an adjustment to 5' 10" for Paul and 5' 9.75" for George would be more accurate, Rob.
Perfect Paul said on 9/Feb/19

Looking again at photos with the same footwear and posture, there really was only 0.25" between Paul and George. Even 0.5" difference is too much, as George matched Paul's height at times. Overall, there was a slight noticable difference though.

Paul wasn't the tallest Beatle!

John and Paul were dead level. Paul even confirmed they were the same height.

Paul in a thicker heel at times and better posture gave the illusion of him being taller than John.

5' 9.75" for Paul and John.
5' 9.5" for George.

All 3 in the 177 cm range. This is as exact as it gets without measuring them!
Perfect Paul said on 9/Feb/19

Although you can argue slightly less (as I have) for their absolute low, I really think the following adjustments would be a step in the right direction:

McCartney: 5' 10" (178 cm)
Lennon: 5' 9.75" (177 cm)
Harrison: 5' 9.5" (177 cm)
Starr: 5' 6.75" (170 cm)

Would you consider that?

5' 10" tops for Paul, with 5' 9.75" also being a strong possibilty?
Editor Rob
I would say there is a chance of some 1/4 inch lower listings, but I need to look at them again in the future.
Perfect Paul said on 9/Feb/19
Thanks for your reply Rob.

Just a couple of other points:

Can you at least see why I think George and John were 177 cm tops, when you look at the overall evidence?

Remember, Paul was either the same height or just 0.25" taller than John - so virtually the same.

The difference between Paul and George is also marginal - 0.25" to possibly 0.5" absolute max but definitely nothing more.

There's a large amount of evidence to show that George definitely didn't look more than 5' 9.5"!

So, Paul at 5' 9.75" to 5' 10" looks to be the very most he could have been at peak height.

Editor Rob
Yes, I can see why people estimate them as that low, because at times they have seemed barely 5ft 10...even Muhammad Ali made them look shorter than their listings.
Perfect Paul said on 6/Feb/19

I only insist on a listing being incorrect, if I'm absoultely convinced there's an obvious error.

Just seen photos of when The Fab Four met Prince Philip - who most agree was 6' 0" at peak height.

There was clearly more than 1.75-2 inches difference! Once again, we have the 3 front Beatles all looking nearer 5' 9.5" at best, in comparison to someone of a known height.

None of them were more than 177 cm, even in the 1960s!
Perfect Paul said on 6/Feb/19

I'm sorry to give you a hard time regarding The Beatles' heights. I know you have tonnes of other listings to also spend time on.

But how can as tall as 5' 10.25" be realistic for Paul at peak height? Almost Tom Jones' height? No way!

There's some pretty obvious comparisons from the 1960s and 70s, that show neither Paul or John were above 5' 9.75" - with George seeming just a shade below at 5' 9.5".

I'd be interested if you can shed some light on this please.

Editor Rob
I can't see Paul under 5ft 10, but at 5ft 10 flat yes it is possible. When you look at tom and paul in their more elder years They do seem close.
Perfect Paul said on 28/Jan/19
I really have seen enough evidence now to confirm that Paul and John were never any taller than 177 cm - with George just a hair less at 176 cm.

Beatle boots (1.5"), making them all look half an inch taller than their barefoot heights.

The 5' 11" that the 3 frontline Beatles were constantly listed as, shows they were nearer 5' 9.5" range barefoot.
Perfect Paul said on 28/Jan/19
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.
Perfect Paul said on 28/Jan/19
Rob, Sir Paul is 5' 9.25" (176 cm) today.

He had 1.5" on James Corden (5' 8.25"), but had half inch more footwear when they did Carpool Karaoke.

Was 5' 9.75" (177 cm) peak height. He's only lost half an inch and done remarkably well, given the fact he's now 76. Much like Rod Stewart actually.
JB said on 28/Dec/18
I agree with James for the most part. John and George both around 5'9". But I don't think Paul was ever more than 5'10". 5'10" peak for Paul.
Michael 5'10", 178 cm said on 12/Dec/18
He looked 5'10" to me, but Paul could look a bit taller than that in his peak, definitely like in the 5'9 1/2" range today. He obviously lost a little height. I can buy 5'10 1/4" for him.
James Keffer said on 24/Oct/18
rob I can agree with his height today at 5'9.5 but I think his peak is more 5'10.5 than 5'10.25.
For the all the beetles' peak height, I think Paul was definitely the tallest.

Paul (5'10.5)
John (5'9.25)
George (5'9)
Ringo (5'5.75)
Rory said on 11/Sep/18
Yh I think 5ft10.25-10.5 was probably his range peak. He certainly was the tallest Beatle, and 5ft9.5 today.
Sandy Cowell said on 9/Sep/18
I wonder what Paul thinks of the murdering of his song 'Let 'Em In', a lousy cover version of which is played every time they advertise the Postcode Lottery? It's been driving me round the bend! 😤

It came out preceding the Wings song 'Silly Love Songs' and both were excellent and original songs, believe it or not! (1975)

Paul gets 5ft10.5 for his peak and 5ft9.5 for today's height.
Mr.Kenobi said on 8/Sep/18
Looks almost as tall as Jimmy Fallon. Click Here
Claudio said on 7/Sep/18
Only an inch shorter than Jimmy Fallon recently, with similar footwear.
Anonim said on 5/Sep/18
Paul 178,5
John 177
George 175
Ringo 168,5
Alexander seth said on 3/Sep/18
William shepheard height 5ft 11, Paul McCartney height 5ft8 . Go figure
HiRob said on 26/Jun/18
Here he is with James Corden. He looks like a strong 5'9 to me. I think James Corden is 5'8?

Click Here
Editor Rob
McCartney at times is looking 5ft 9 range, but might still be 9.5
Ronnie P said on 7/May/18
This rubbish of McCartney being taller than Lennon and Harrison is just that. Many photos show them as tall, if not taller. He has this ego on all things.
SamP said on 24/Apr/18
I watched a 1968 Smothers Brothers show on You Tube and G.Harrison was on for a bit in the beginning. He looked at most an inch taller than them. Tom Smothers is 5'8". The camera cut them at the knees. Since P McCartney was about the same height as Harrison & J Lennon,(judging by dozens of photos), these 3 would only be 5'9" or the Smothers Brothers had on heeled shoes, which was common back then.I saw another video of T.Smothers and he had a obvious chunky heel shoes. I found a photo of Ringo Starr with T. Smothers. They looked the same height. R Starr must be taller than 5'6", closer to 5'8".
Greg99 said on 14/Apr/18
FYI the comparisons to Tom Jones are way off base - Jones was never taller about 5'9", maybe 5'9.5 in the morning and wore shoes with chunky heels and possibly lifts on stage.
Tomm said on 10/Apr/18
good guy, slightly above average briton
Dom P said on 18/Feb/18
Mr. P McCartney on the Sgt. Pepper cover looks about an inch taller than Lennon and Harrison but he must be standing on a high spot and/or shoes with thick heels. But he is a bit shorter than J. Lennon and G. Harrison on the "HELP" cover LP/CD. They are all wearing the same snow boots, standing straight. He may have been a bit shorter than the other two, all things being equal.
Christian said on 5/Feb/18
Hey Joey. Do you remember if Paul wore these shoes. I think they add almost 2 inches. Would you agree Rob? Click Here
Joey said on 3/Feb/18
I saw him at Gimpo airport in Korea, 2015. He was slightly taller than my height which is 178 cm. Maybe he wore lifts that day but i don't think he's 176.5 cm.
Ian Forsyth said on 20/Jan/18
I met Paul in 1984 in Liverpool and I am 6"3 and would estimate Paul at 5"9.
Ally N said on 20/Dec/17
I believe Paul was never any taller than 5'10", maybe. He almost never wore sneakers. Always a thick shoe heal or boots, along with his great posture, high shoulders & long legs, made him look taller. My guess today he is 5'9 1/2 at the most. I use to think as a kid, Paul was the tallest in the group after watching, the Let it Be film. He had chunky shoe heals and John and George sneakers. Now I know better, just for fun of it.
macfan said on 18/Dec/17
If Macca was truly the tallest Beatle he would have said so. Instead, we see that he stated they were the same height and this is backed by Your Mother Should Know which shows he wasn't lying.
Beatle Faul said on 9/Dec/17
Peak height: 5' 9.75" (177 cm)
Current height: 5' 9" (175 cm)

I agree with you that he's shrunk 0.75" from peak.

But can you see why I think the above is more accurate than your current listing?

And George just a hair smaller, at 5' 9.5" (177 cm).

What do you think, Rob?
Christian said on 7/Dec/17
I have always thought of Paul as a tad taller than John. Around 5.10 for both so I would say I agree with Robs listing. When it comes to George I do think he was the same height as John but his posture was awful. Take a look at imagine when George is helping John out on the album. They do look indentical in height. At the lowest John and George could be 5.9.5 Pauls lowest when younger 5.9.75
Beatle Faul said on 7/Dec/17
5' 9.75" barefoot also explains Paul's 'very big claim' of "Just above 5 feet 11 inches", which he made in 1964.

Indeed, in the 1.5" Beatle Boots, he would have measured 5' 11.25".
Beatle Faul said on 7/Dec/17
I appreciate your comments ally N.

I'm saying 5' 9.75" for both John and Paul - which still is practically 5' 10" - but explains why they looked 5' 9.5"ish on many occasions.

Look at them with Tom Jones - an honest 5' 10.5" guy. They both look weak 5' 10" guys.

Look at John with Pete Townshend and Keith Moon!

I did originally think Paul edged John. But looking into it more, really believe they were identical and George just a tiny fraction below - making him 5' 9.5".
ally N said on 7/Dec/17
I have to disagree with Faul. The 3 front Beatles were 5' 10' and the same height within 1/4 ". Check the Hey Jude Cover. Paul had on a thick heal. John and George small heal. Its obvious. George's hair was flat, Paul's was puffed a bit and John my favorite, had a hat on, but still looking a bit shorter. Which means George may have been taller as a result, at that time. His posture unusually good that day. Gerald Ford had shoes with a heal and George flat sneakers back then. E Clapton had heals quite often, so hard to tell. I agree on the C Berry he was about 6'1". John was 5'10".
Brad said on 5/Dec/17
G from 10 years ago: "5-11". Correct. John 5' 10.5". Today: weak 5-10.
Beatle Faul said on 5/Dec/17
I originally gave Paul a quarter-inch more than John - like you have.

But Paul and John were actually level. Paul even confirmed they were the same height.

I think Paul's better posture in many photos and thicker footwear on occasions accounted for him looking taller than John. But there is plenty of evidence (video footage - not just static photos) that show they really were identical heights.

George was only a fraction shorter - he adopted looser posture at times, bent knees, etc. But when stood ramrod straight, was almost as tall as John and Paul.
Beatle Faul said on 3/Dec/17
5' 9.75" (177 cm) makes the most sense.
Paul claims that both him and John were 5' 10.5" - which in the morning they would have been.

With the 1.5" 'Beatle Boots' on, they would have given people a 5' 10.25" impression - your current listing for Paul.

Also, 5' 9.75" explains why most people guess them at 5' 10" - but also explains why they looked 5' 9.5" too.

Definitely more chance of 5' 9.5-10" than 5' 10-10.5", Rob.
Beatle Faul said on 2/Dec/17

anything above 5' 9.75" for Paul or John is impossible.

Just look at them both, on separate occasions with Tom Jones!

Look at John with Chuck Berry (6' 0.5") - looks close to 3 inches shorter and has footwear advantage.

5' 9.5" is the most that George could have been, when you compare him with people like Eric Clapton and Gerald Ford. John and Paul edge him out too - only ever so slightly though.
Beatle Faul said on 1/Dec/17
Hi Rob.

I've just done the whole Beatles experience in Liverpool. Singing along to Beatles classics in The Cavern is priceless stuff!

Here are my very considered barefoot estimates, from looking at a very wide range of photos and videos at The Beatles Story museum - plus all the evidence amassed on here over the years.

All peak heights -

Paul: 5' 9.75" (177 cm)
John: 5' 9.5" (177 cm)
George: 5' 9.25" (176 cm)
Ringo: 5' 6.5" (169 cm)

Factor in 'Beatle boots' and they could all look taller than this.

The 3 frontline Beatles were all extremely close, but there were very slight differences.

Here are just some notable examples behind my estimates:

Paul was close to an inch shorter than Tom Jones (5' 10.5").

John, over 2 inches shorter than Pete Townshend (5' 11.75").

George, looked the weakest 5' 10" guy out of them on the most occasions. Clearly looked below 5' 10" with Gerald Ford (6' 0") too.

Ringo, around 3 inches below them all.

Bruce Forsyth (5' 11") made them all look below 178 cm when they met.

Of the 3 taller members, Paul had the closest chance of being 5' 10". But even he was more 177 cm, than the full 178 cm.

I'm absolutely convinced that your listing for Sir Paul is half an inch too high and therefore has inflated the other members heights - as well as Paul's current height, which I believe to be 5' 9" (175 cm).

I'm a big fan but feel that in all honesty, their listings do need adjusting.

Hope this helps. Feel free to agree or completely disagree.

MJKoP said on 30/Nov/17
Wasn't Macca listed as his claimed 5'10.5" at one point? Did Rob Paul rob Paul of a quarter inch???? :O
Ian C. said on 25/Nov/17
Paul and his three musical pals from Liverpool had the physiques of average Englishmen- the kind of men who built the British Empire by steady and ruthless conquest. Tough, sharp, good-humoured men, but not unusually large or muscular. They remind you of mustangs.
blazer said on 18/Nov/17
@Rob, what do you think about the claims that Paul was replaced by a look a like and gained height? They say the original Paul before 1966 was much shorter.
Editor Rob
famous people do use body doubles at times, it's no secret, but I don't buy Paul being replaced!
Ally N said on 18/Nov/17
Paul's height in pictures and videos seem to show him taller than he really is. Especially in the early days. He always wore shoes with thick heels. John and George wore sneakers quite often. Example would be the Let it Be film. Great song and guitar solo on the song, though.
Hannah said on 12/Nov/17
to me for his shoe size 8,5/so that's 43/ seems about right,and i think Ringo mentioned it in an early interview too!
Hannah said on 12/Nov/17
If John's peak height was around 178cm then Paul was at least 179cm because he always seemed to be taller than John. (it's the long legs!) I would say he was almost 180.
Alex said on 31/Oct/17
8.5 size shoe? That seems tremendously small for a 5'10" guy. I'm personally only 5'7" and am a size 9.5, sometimes 10.
Gina said on 25/Oct/17
You know if you look at enough pictures you realize John, Paul and George were not actually the same height when wearing shoes with similar heels. John was shorter than Paul and George, who were very close in height. Sometimes Paul looked a smidge taller, sometimes George did. Depended on the hair mostly. I can't speak for actual heights, I think 5 10 1/2 is probably true for Paul and George but John was shorter by probably an inch.
Harris said on 12/Oct/17
Rob, is it possible he could have been the 5'10.5" he claimed at his peak? I understand he could look nearer 5'10" at times, hence your rounded 5'10.25" listing, but I think he's looked more 179 cm than 178 cm in his prime. Your listing seems spot on either way though of course. He can look a flat 5'9" today at age 75, but no less imo.
Editor Rob
well I think 5ft 11 is a stretch, 5ft 10.5 is possible, at least 5ft 10-10.5 seems a likely and believable range.
ANDY said on 4/Oct/17
He Will ALWAYS Be Five Foot Eleven.
ron said on 19/Sep/17
im thinking about the comment of faul having wide shoulders,makes him appear taller. this is a dead giveaway..the orig. 1960 paul was a very little guy,no wide shoulders,very small build.
Dingus said on 11/Sep/17
I think John, Paul, and George were all about 5'09.75"-5'10.00" in their youths. Ringo was 5'06.25"-5'07.00".
AllyN said on 28/Jul/17
Paul has and still has great posture. That is a good thing for anyone. Ringo does too. But George and John not so much. In their prime John, Paul & George, when lined up evenly and a straight photo are without a doubt, exactly the same height, (1/4 inch difference at most). The Beatles for Sale, Abbey Road (Ringo only one wearing heals), and Hey Jude albums prove this. Even during 1964 Beatle boot period the 3 looked the same height. The 3 of them looked 5 foot 10 inch, each. Ringo peak 5' 7". Every one I know agrees. I'm lucky I know a lot of people.
Spencer said on 20/Jun/17
Peak : McCartney 5'10.25 178.5 cm. Lennon 5'10 178 cm Harrison 5'9.25 175-76 cm. Ringo 5'6.5 168-69 cm
Jug said on 5/Jun/17
I've seen Paul in New York a couple of times. I'm 6'2. I would have placed him at about 5'11 to be honest. He was fairly tall. Walked right past him and his girlfriend on the street. Then again, maybe that was really William Shears Campbell.
Rory said on 28/May/17
I don't think he was 5'10.5. To me both Cliff Richard and Tom Jones who claim 5'10.5 edged him out. Paul Weller also looked at least an inch taller than him. I think 5'10.25 peak is fair enough though.
jpgr said on 14/May/17
Peak heights:
John: 5'9.75"
Paul: 5'10.5"
George: 5'9"
Ringo: 5'6"
Christian said on 3/May/17
I wouldn't go over five teen in his youth even if he has claimed five ten and a half. That is why I think John and George was just under the five ten mark.
Sandy Cowell said on 24/Apr/17
Of all the Beatles' solo work, Paul's has the best comedy element! His lyrics can be truly funny, whereas John's can show quite a bit of pent-up anger - sometimes with Paul, to mention one pet subject of his!
I have a couple of albums each of Paul's, John's and George's, and I love them all! They are uplifting to listen to, but Paul writes with quite a lot of humour, which is great! I love 'We All Stand Together', and 'C Moon', and in Paul's album 'All the Best', he is seen raising a healthful glass of wine to us on the front cover! Before each song's words are printed, there are some charming little pictures! Paul has a great sense of fun!
In the early Beatles videos, all the three members I just mentioned looked much the same height. They were above average for the 60's. Perhaps their 'mop tops' gave an illusion of a bit more height!
If one of them was marginally taller, my money would be on Paul with an extra quarter inch. I used to think it was John, but I learnt otherwise on his page!
Today, Paul gets 5ft10.25 for his peak height and 5ft9.25 for today's. He's always been 'health aware', and I think that the odd indiscretion, like the December he got busted for growing dope when 'Pipes of Peace' was in the charts, is forgiveable! The headline for the front-page article was 'Paul's Pipes of Pot'! I thought that was hilarious!
AD said on 13/Mar/17
I met Macca when he was 44 so would still have been peak height ..he was a good 5'9.5 ...pushing 5'10 ...nearest to pin him down would be 177cm. The thing that struck me about the photo I had taken with him was his shoulders were very high set and broad which gave him the appearance of being taller.
Christian said on 7/Mar/17
If you look at 05.50 on the link below when Paul was at the Terry Wogans show, Paul looks about 2 inches shorter then Terry. Terry was 6 feet according to himself. So around 5.10 for Paul. I am not sure if he ever was 5.10.5 that he claims to be. But around 5.10 in his younger days. Today he is always wearing a 1.5 inch boot to to boost up his height a bit. I dont think he is much over 5.9 today. Click Here
Sean said on 1/Mar/17
I think Paul was 5' 10.5" peak, which was tallish for a British man in the 60s. Barry Miles in his authorised biography says Paul used to look tall in his 60s prime. Probably a touch under 5' 10" now. As others here say, John might have been a bit shorter. I think Paul has learnt by now not to be seen to compete with John in public so he probably just said they were the same height. Old Beatle articles saying they were 5' 11" were probably adjusted up.
Christian said on 12/Feb/17
Hey Rob!
Do you think Paul is closer to 5'9'' today? And those shoes he has been wearing for a couple years now, how much do you think they add to his height?
Click Here
Editor Rob
Christian, today he can certainly look 5ft 9 at times, but he may still clear it when measured....I'm not sure about the shoes he wears, you have to be registered with pinterest when clicking that link, as it does want you to login/register.
vik said on 6/Dec/16
Click Here

strange pix
Christian said on 6/Oct/16
This is interesting.
Paul McCartney in 3D print. It says: While McCartney stands at approximately 5'9"³ tall, the p1version of the singer that was printed and on display was a tad bit taller.

Click Here

Click Here

Here it says at the bottom of the page:Why is everyone saying the print is taller than the original?

That was part of our project: to make it as close to Sir Paul's original size as possible. He wore some high heels for scanning and therefore the shoes add 1.5" to the original height

So with his boots that gives him 1.5 inches boost he is around 180 cm. That put Ringo at 169-170 cm with shoes on and just about 5'6''today.
Christian said on 6/Oct/16
-Rob Here you can see Paul in sandals. One of them next to him is Bono. I think Paul look taller then expected. What would you say? Click Here
Editor Rob
could still look nearly 5ft 10 there.
Christian said on 30/Sep/16
The thing is that I think Pauls shoes that he wears today is with a heel with almost 2 inches. He seems to be at around 180-181 cm with them on. That would put him at 175-176 cm today max. And I doubt that Paul has ever been over 5.10.
AD said on 27/Sep/16
This is a really good pic of them standing together on a level surface with the same stance... John, Paul and George really looking the same height. Macca was 177cm when I met him and I really think that's the nearest for the 3 of them ....
Click Here
TJE said on 25/Sep/16
That's what I'm saying. It's initially 10 cm difference; but they took their shoes off and Ringo matched posture, there would only be about 8 cm between them. Maybe Paul could be 5'9.25 today?
TJE said on 21/Sep/16
Paul and Ringo met together at the Eight Days a Week premiere last Thursday along with 173 Ron Howard:

Click Here

Paul looks 10 cm taller at the most, but RIngo has less footwear and posture. I can't see 9 cm between them today, but Paul can still look 3-4 cm taller than Ron. Someone here needs a downgrade.

Thoughts, Rob?
Editor Rob
he can look 10cm smaller yes, but with a pair of vans and paul in a bigger than normal heel that accounts for some of the difference.
AD said on 20/Sep/16
Had my photo taken with him when he was 44, he was definitely 5' 9.5" ....looked a little taller cause he had high and broad shoulders. He was very nice mannered, a real gentleman.
John said on 17/Sep/16
Paul McCartney is just about 6' tall. During the whole ""Paul is dead"" debacle, the radio DJ who started it all, showed two, comparative photos of the beatles, all barefoot in Paul's father's back yard. Paul towered over George and Ringo and was noticeably taller than John Lennon. John Lennon's Death Certificate / Coroner's report, lists his height as 5'10.5". So, if Paul was noticeably taller than John Lennon, and we have Lennon's officially confirmed height of 5'10.5", then it is safe to assume that Paul is clse to, if not, 6'.
Andrew said on 5/Sep/16
Rob, on a scale from 1-10 (10 being very surprised), how surprised would you be if he actually was 5'10.5" normally as he has claimed himself and John Lennon to have been at the peak of their lives?
Harry said on 18/Jul/16
The Beatles height:
Paul: 178-179cm
John: 178cm
George: 177cm
Ringo: 168-169cm
anonymous said on 15/Apr/16
Who is right lol
mark said on 20/Mar/16
On the Sgt. Peppers cover Paul is 3" taller then George and John. He's taller by 2 or 3 inches in the picture wearing the black rose where the other 3 wore a red rose( I forgot what the picture was relative to )......
Raejean said on 18/Mar/16
I don't know how tall Paul really was back in the day, but I will say the press releases had Paul, John, and George all at 5'11". Too many pictures later, I would say that Paul was the tallest, followed by John, then George by as much as an inch shorter than Paul. Recent pictures of Paul with Jimmy Fallon (6'0") and Barack Obama (6'1") seem to show Paul to be 4-5 inches shorter.
JB said on 30/Jan/16
@Brian He was 21/22 on the Ed Sullivan show. He was born in 1942 and the Ed Sullivan show performance was in 1964.
Brian said on 23/Jan/16
Wasn't Paul 17 or 18 years old when he was on the Ed Sullivan show? I'm sure he could grow 3 inches from an 18 year old to a 21 year old, right?
paul said on 11/Jan/16
well I stood next to mcartney in london 2 years ago and I am about 5.9 in trainers and macca couldnt have been nore than .1 inch taller than me which makes him about 5,9 and a half max
FIVE NINE said on 6/Jan/16
Beatle Peak:
Paul- 5' 10
John- 5' 9.5"
George- 5' 9.5"
Ringo- 5' 6"
TJE said on 27/Nov/15
The peak height is correct, but Lennon was downgraded too steeply.

Both were 5'10.25 peak.
Christian said on 18/Nov/15
Paul must have shrunked a bit more than 1 cm over the years. Since the begining of 2000 he wears a high heel boot everytime he is in the spotlight. There is a book from the eighties I dont know the title where he describs himmel as 176 cm and Linda as 169 cm.I have heard about it but I dont know if it is true. The rumors of John beeing 5'8'' is a bit low but the more I see of John and Paul I start to question their heights. People that have met Paul that I know has said he looks around 5'9'' and the same with John back in the days. It is interesting that Georges passport say 5'10'' and to me John and George was the same height and Paul a tad tallar. I think the possibility if Ringo was 5'7'' in his you youth that John and George was 177 cm and Paul 178 cm.
Sizzlier said on 11/Nov/15
He never gave me the impression of anything under 5'10, but John and George can look a bit under the mark.
Sam said on 5/Nov/15
Thanks for this update as well, although Paul and John could look practically the same, Paul has the strongest evidence of having been the tallest Beatle.
Sam said on 4/Nov/15
Thanks for downgrading John to 5'10", I think Paul should follow suit. Sometimes Paul could seem a smidge taller but then so could John & in general they looked pretty even. Paul even specifies that they were the same height. If John was 5'10", the most I could see Paul listed is 5'10.25".
Editor Rob
10.25 is probably a good enough shot for him.
Christian said on 15/Sep/15
Paul looks at least an inch shorter then 5'10'' Paul Weller. Click Here
Stuboy82 said on 16/Aug/15
Tom jones only claims a peak height of 5"10.5 and is listed as this here.. but a google image search of him with both paul and john lennon reveal that he is at least an inch taller than them..
JB said on 24/Jun/15
@thewonders Exactly. Paul was the tallest and he was never taller than 5'10" John and George were both about an inch shorter. Nobody seems to believe me when I tell them this.
john said on 12/May/15
Paul said he was 5 foot 10 inches tall in a
Rolling Stone interview 2 years ago. And Ringo says he is 5 foot 6 inches tall.
dinah said on 2/May/15
I'd say probably now he is 5'8" now but in the Beatles era, he was about 5'10" to even 5"11. I heard in an interview he did in 1964 that he was 5'11" when he was 21. It is true that he was the tallest Beatle, even though there was some controversy.
john said on 24/Apr/15
Paul yes he is 5 foot ten inches tall
thewonders said on 15/Apr/15
Paul has never been taller than 5'10", probably closer to 5'9.5".
Also, some people don't seem to know that Paul was the tallest Beatle - John was around an inch shorter than Paul.
Art said on 3/Apr/15
I will say 5'10 at the most. I stepped next to him at my job, in NYC. He has being report at 5'11, no way Jose. Remember the Beatles , used to wear boots .
Tymmo said on 6/Mar/15
isn't 177cm, 5ft9.75? or even 5ft10? I thought 178cm was 5ft10.25 and 179cm was 5ft10.50 and 180cm 5ft10.75
Bran said on 6/Feb/15
Sorry i take some of that back, on a closer look at his height in the recent years, i actually agree with the 5ft9.5 listing, with fallon and others, my bad, hes never 5ft8 or something now, still holds at least 5ft9 range, so i suppose after all 5ft10-11 does look likely as hes what 72-3, my grandads 78-9 and has lost a couple of inch, so i suppose 1-1.5 inch height loss by early 70s is average range, good listing Rob .
JB said on 5/Feb/15
Watch the FourFiveSeconds video. Both Rihanna and Kanye are 5'8" and Paul's not much taller.
Bran said on 5/Feb/15
Rob, why do you take the 5ft10.5 claim as so literal by mccartney, do you believe the beatles were prehaps measured barefoot sometime, and contested whos the talest and he noted him and Johns, the two tallest? were the same,.. well prehaps the 5ft10.5 are in shoe measurements , well either way they looked minus 5ft10 with Ali imo, and nowadays paul can look 5ft8-9 range, has he really lost a full two inch,.. i see 5ft10.5 as the best case scenario for both Lennon and mccartney.
Editor Rob
in that era it seemed they all wanted to be 5ft 11 with Ringo wanting to be 5ft 8. I do think Paul lost height, how much to be precise is the ultimate question!
Peter Jones said on 3/Feb/15
I've seen his waxworks at the Blackpool Madame Tussaud's and the one it replaced, Louis Tussaud's (an independent company). I'm 5'10" and it probably stands 3" shorter than me, approximately. Maybe 2" but I'd have to double-check. The old one, at the Louis T museum, was about the same, as I remember.
AD said on 7/Jan/15
London Boy I believe you are bang on ...I met him a long time ago, had a photo with him ... 177cm is the most accurate for then, 175cm accurate for now confirmed on here a while ago by someone who works at his company.
Alex said on 6/Jan/15
5'10 max peak height
gian92 said on 3/Jan/15
Who can explain this photo ?
Click Here
London Boy said on 3/Jan/15
I think 5' 10" peak height is possible, but no more. 177 cm barefoot for peak is where I'd place my money. 175 cm now.
London Boy said on 3/Jan/15
5' 10.5" peak height really is a stretch though. I really think you could argue anything between 5' 9.5" and 5' 10". But 179 cm (barefoot) is an overlisting. This coming from a huge fan!
Liam 176 said on 26/Oct/14
Doesn't look above 5' 9" now. Do an image search of him with Liam Gallagher (5' 10") or Dave Grohl (6' 0").
Sean said on 26/Aug/14
Was Paul's peak height ever listed at 5'11", Rob?
TJE said on 25/Aug/14
Not seeing this 5'10.5 peak, looked too average sized. Still, he's pretty similar to John Lennon. Maybe 5'10.25 peak, 5'9.25 now.
JB said on 16/Aug/14
My best guess is 5'9.75" peak, weak 5'9" now. Factor in the Beatles boots they used to wear and he would have looked 5'11", which is what he claimed in the 60s.
Sam said on 11/Aug/14
I think he could have been 5'10", as with Lennon, but not 5'10.5" ever. I see that as a bit more than a 4 inch difference with Muhammad Ali.
Click Here
Spirit Level said on 11/Aug/14
I'd list him 5' 9.5" (177 cm) peak height and 5' 9" (175 cm) current height. He hasn't shrunk more than 2 cm yet, in my opinion.
Spirit Level said on 10/Aug/14
Sir Paul was 177 cm peak height. 179 cm really is a stretch. Look at him alongside Bruce Forsyth in the 1960s.
rockitbaby said on 5/Aug/14
Probably 1,77m or 1,78m. This is him next to 6'0 Dave Grohl:

Click Here
AD said on 31/Jul/14
I'm still confused why the 5ft 10.5in is still displayed? On top of all the other sightings of Macca around 5ft 9in now I met him in his early 40s and he was 5ft 9.5in then (most definitely) so I doubt he was ever taller than that?
Tyler said on 29/Jul/14
5'8 and 3/4
Tokyo Yoshi said on 26/Jul/14
I watched McCartney at Tokyo International Airport in this May. McCartney approximately 2cm was taller than me. My height is 175cm. The height of McCartney is certainly approximately 177cm.
JB said on 14/May/14
He doesn't seem much taller than Paul Rudd. Who is listed as 5'9", although there seems to be a general consensus that's he's more like 5'8". Thus once again providing evidence that Sir Paul can't be more than 5'9"
Tape Measure said on 1/May/14
Rob really, he weren't above 177 cm at peak height. It's just like the "Harry Styles is 5' 11" or 6 feet" BS. With boots he looked taller - just like Styles...
Karateman said on 2/Mar/14
Click Here
With Steven Tyler.(5ft 9in)
Paul McCartney wears flat shoes.
Paul McCartney's height is 5ft 9.75in.
JB said on 4/Feb/14
I'd say 5'9.5" was more like his peak height. The fact that his claim is 5'10.5" tells us that he was actually more like 5'9.5". All celebrities add the extra inch or two when giving their height. All the Beatles claimed to be 5'11" or as John said "just under six feet" to try and give the impression of being above average. And back in the 1960s it was easier to get away with lies like that.

Anyways, nowadays he looks more like a 5'8.5" kinda guy.
little sue said on 29/Jan/14
My mate 71 and he was always 5ft 11 but he was measured at Doctors last week and they said he was 5ft 9 so two inches shrinkage easily possible
Torg said on 27/Jan/14
If McCartney is 5' 10" (give or take an inch, then every other male in the world must be 6' 3" or more..... McCartney is noticeably shorter than other celebs who state their height as 5' 10". I'd guess he's actually closer to 5' 7" or 5' 8".
Dora said on 26/Jan/14
How Paul can be 178 or 180 cm when standing by his newest wife who is 170 where he almost looks shorter than her. SHE WEARS FLATS!!!! Is he shrinking that rapidly? I don't think anyone can at age 71 - his face looks terribly old for his age too.
truth said on 3/Jan/14
181cm morning like he said, then yes 179cm is beleivable.
Christian said on 17/Dec/13
-mcfan,yes I know. I was suprised as well.
Christian said on 4/Dec/13
-mcfan, No it is Paul´s quote: Have a look here: Click Here
Sam said on 27/Nov/13
Sure, just over 5'11" peak, in his Cuban heels, standing ramrod straight in the morning.
Christian said on 26/Nov/13
Hey Rob. This is what Paul stated in an interview from 1964.

What is your full real name?

James Paul McCartney.

Where and when were you born?

I was born in Liverpool, England, on June 18, 1942.

What is your height, weight and coloring?

I'm just above 5 feet 11 inches tall and weigh 158 pounds.

Interesting that he said just above 5'11''. This was the at the same time John stated he was just under six feet tall.
Editor Rob
it's a big claim
Sam said on 19/Nov/13
I'd take a stab that at peak McCartney was 5'10.25" in the morning and shrinking as much as half inch over the day and is now nearly an inch shorter than his peak.
jimbo said on 18/Nov/13
Paul was 5'9 3/4" in bare feet in 1966. I've seen his tailor's measurements.
heightwise said on 15/Nov/13
As a big Beatles fan, what I perceive their peak heights to be:

Paul- 178-179cm
John 177-178cm
George 177cm
Ringo 167-169cm

Very fractionally taller than John though could appear an inch+ taller due to better posture. To me it's clear George is third tallest despite the 3 of them always looking roughly the same. Ringo i'm a bit more unsure of so i've given him a bigger bracket, at times he looked to have enough on his footwear to give the illusion of other 2-3inches shorter than the others, but is definitely a good 4.

I did however see a newspaper clipping from when they met Muhammad Ali saying "The Beatles, none of whom measured over 5ft10" which is quite revealing. So maybe he was just exactly 5'10 peak
Hiro said on 3/Nov/13
Click Here

Paul McCartney.(5ft 9.75in)
Jeff Lynne.(5ft 10.5in )
Claude Nobs.(?)
Joe Walsh.(5ft 10.5in )
Pascal 5 10 said on 1/Nov/13
Rob, did you see my last comment? What do you think?
Editor Rob
he can look 5ft 9-9.5 today, but how much height he has lost, whether it is only a little or a full inch, that's the question
Pascal 5 10 said on 31/Oct/13
Rob, I don't mean to give you a hard time over this. 5' 9.5" is actually closer to his peak height. He has only lost around half an inch - and these days does look 175 cm most of the time (when he isn't wearing his big Cuban heels or Beatle boots).

There is no way he or John were legit 5' 10.5" men barefoot!
Pascal 5 10 said on 30/Oct/13
Rob, what makes you think that he's 5' 10"? Do you seriously think that he would stand like Ronnie O'Sullivan or Mike Tyson in a photo next to you?
Editor Rob
nowadays he can look shy of 5ft 10
Sam said on 30/Oct/13
He has looked pretty consistently close to 5'9" for years. I think 5'10.5"-5'11" self claims are an attempt to squeeze a little more height out for McCartney, Lennon and Harrison, perhaps a citing of their height wearing shoes. Next to 5'9.5"-5'10" peak guys like Eric Clapton, David Bowie and Mick Jagger, they look very similar heights. The three non-Ringo Beatles never got over 5'10" barefoot IMO, maybe more like a peak of 5'9.75" for McCartney and Lennon, about a half inch less for Harrison.
Yoshi said on 30/Oct/13
Click Here
With Bruce Springsteen.(5ft 9in)

Click Here
With Neil Young.(5ft 11in)

Click Here
With Tom Hanks.(6ft)

Paul McCartney wears flat shoes.
Paul McCartney's height is 5ft 9.75in.

Yokosan said on 29/Oct/13
Hello, satchy.
Paul McCartney's height is 5ft 9.75in.
On a day of this photography, Chris Pine wears western boots and Paul McCartney wears sneakers.
Christian said on 28/Oct/13
In the documentary "The Love We Make" Paul is standing talking to CNN-reporter Dan Rather. Rob has Dan as 5'10'' and McCartney looks an inch shorter. This was back in 2001 and the more I see of Paul the more he seems to be in the 5'9'' range. Have you seen the documentary Rob?
Yokosan said on 28/Oct/13
Click Here

George Michael's height is 5ft 11in (180 cm).
Paul McCartney's height is 5ft 9.75in (177 cm).
Yokosan said on 28/Oct/13
Paul McCartney's height is 5ft 9.75in (177 cm).
MD said on 28/Oct/13
Definitely not 5'10", anymore. He's lost quite a bit of height.
satchy said on 27/Oct/13
he is no taller than 5ft he is with Chris Pine Click Here
Berni said on 26/Oct/13
I met Paul last week 18/10/2013 and was taken by how much shorter he appeared to be than me.i am 5.101/2 or 179 in new money. Guess he must be approx 5.91/2.
Yokosan said on 25/Oct/13
Click Here
Yokosan said on 25/Oct/13
Click Here

Please watch the shoes of two people. Jimmy Fallon wears high heel shoes. Paul McCartney wears flat sneakers.
MD said on 18/Oct/13
With 5'11.5" Jimmy Fallon:

Click Here
Pascal 5 10 said on 10/Oct/13
This needs amending. He's one of the most famous people in the world! I love the guy, but he's over-listed here.

More like 177 cm peak and 175 cm now.
Uncle P said on 27/Sep/13
He describes himself as 5'10" in an interview in the current edition of Mojo, the British music magzine.
Pascal 5 10 said on 13/Sep/13
Just saw a picture of Paul with Prince Charles, from the mid '90s. They were identical - 5' 9.5".
christian said on 2/Sep/13
There is a documentary called The Love We Make. It takes place in the aftermath of 9/11 and when Paul was gathering celebs to a concert for the victims and for the heroes there is a scen when Paul is talklng to Eric Clapton. The are standing on the same ground and Paul is wearing black sneakers. They look to add an inch. Eric is in some flat shoes. In this scene Eric looks an inch taller. I was suprised cause Eric seemed to be in the 5'11' region. But if he is 5'9 and a half Paul is max 5'9''. Have you seen the documentary Rob?
randall said on 26/Aug/13
Yes, 5' 9.5" barefooted is about right. Celebs fudge a lot with height even members of the Beatles.
Craig 177 said on 29/Jul/13
5' 8.75" (175 cm) now. 5' 9.5" (177 cm) peak.

I really do believe that this is accurate. What do you think Rob?
AJ said on 21/Jul/13
Definetely a smidge over lennon I'd say 5'10.75"
Craig 177 said on 1/Jul/13
Paul McCartney: 5' 9.5"
John Lennon: 5' 9.5"
George Harrison: 5' 9"
Ringo Starr: 5' 6"

These are their barefoot heights.
Tee said on 19/Jun/13
5'9" range for Paul, John, and George is totally believable. Ringo has even stated that he was 5'6" and if you look at all of the Beatles together it's easy to see that they're no more than 3 inches taller than Ringo.
Gregorovich said on 23/May/13
The more photos I see of the Beatles, the more I believe that they were all just a tad above 5'9". The best evidence we have is Paul's height now. Even if he has lost an inch due to age, he was never more than 5'10".
Dries said on 20/Apr/13
Not quite 1.80m the tallest Beatle ...
Christian said on 15/Apr/13
-Bruno, nice clip. I would say Paul looks 5'8'" there. Interesting.
Christian said on 25/Mar/13
Here is 5'8'' Joe Jonas next to Paul. Joe Jonas has also been listed 5'7'' but according to himself he is 5'8''. Paul looks 5'10''.

Click Here

And that clip AD posted, Paul has very low cut shoes and Baldwin is in regular 1 inch dress shoes. I think it´s fair too say Paul is 178 cm or just about.
runt said on 21/Mar/13
Rob, would it be too far-fetched for you to be in a photo with one of the remaining Beatles? I suppose its a little presumptuous of me to expect that you would have had a photo with one of the Beatles by now. Are they often in country?
Editor Rob
cost of travel and helping out other family mean I can't do much travelling the last year to get any celebrities, and I hate visiting London
AD said on 21/Mar/13
Was 5'9.5" when I met him in mid 80s so could never have been taller than that,maybe a cm or 2 smaller now plus check out this clip which shows him definately looking about 5'9" now next to 5'11.5" Alec Baldwin
Click Here
Christian said on 11/Mar/13
Have a look at 12 seconds in to the clip. Paul looks 1.5 inches taller than 5.8.5 Joe Cocker

Click Here
Christian said on 11/Mar/13
Here is from the same event:

Click Here
Christian said on 11/Mar/13
-Koalized, Bruce must have 2 inch boots on. But we don´t know for sure.
Koalized said on 7/Mar/13
Click Here
Something is happening here.
Christian said on 28/Feb/13
-Sean, Great clip.
Sean said on 21/Feb/13
Click Here 0:30, Brian must have been having them round up, eh?
IDK said on 6/Dec/12
Not sure guys, next to 6'2.5-3" Cassius Clay Paul McCartney seems about 5'9.5" peak. The top of his head without the hair would only be up to about his lip.

Maybe he didnClick Here
Mac said on 29/Nov/12
I watched Paul near last year. Paul McCartney's height is about 5 ft 10 in (178 cm). Yoshihiro is right
Yoshihiro said on 21/Nov/12
Paul McCartney's height is 5 ft 10 in (178 cm).
Eric Clapton's height is 5 ft 9.5 in (177 cm). 

Click Here
Yoshi said on 21/Nov/12
Paul McCartney's height is 5 ft 10 in (178 cm).
Eric Glapton's height is 5 ft 9.5 in (176.5 cm).

Click Here

Christian said on 14/Nov/12
Yes, I think it is time for a downgrade. Paul is closer to 5'9.5'' today than 5'10. Would you agree Rob?
AD said on 5/Nov/12
I'm not sure about Charles' height but mcfan you're right about the listing for Macca being wrong should be 174.5cm current height.... 177cm peak height.
Alex said on 24/Oct/12
Admittedly I've never seen him but I always had the impression Charles was a six footer. I'm surprised to see him this low.
MHouillon said on 4/Oct/12
5'9 flat these days.

177, maybe 178 back when, but never 179 or 180.
mcfan said on 17/Aug/12
Click Here
mcfan said on 14/Aug/12
While I don't dispute Paul and John were the same height, I just don't think they were quite 5'10.5. How could they have been if Tom Jones was taller than both of them even in the 60s? I'd put them max of 5'10 in the 60s. Bowie was probably 5'9.25 and Jagger 5'9.5. Clapton I think was a true 5'10 guy.
178 said on 27/Jul/12
I am a gigantic Paul McCartney fan. In truth, I'd estimate him to be 5' 8.5" (174 cm) maximum these days.

At the Diamond Jubilee, Prince Charles (who is 5' 9" to 5' 9.5") was almost 1 inch taller. Also, Tom Jones who is 5' 9.5" now, was 1 inch taller than Sir Paul.

I'd list Paul as 5' 9.5" (177 cm) peak height. 5' 8.5" (174 cm) today at age 70.
Christian said on 26/Jul/12
Hi Rob. If you take a look at this photo Jack linked to Click Here Paul looks 5'8-5'9''. Do you think he is under 5'10'' now?
Editor Rob
he does look 5ft 9 in a number of pics nowadays.
jack said on 23/Jul/12
5'9 now looks to be.
mcfan said on 6/Jun/12
Tom Jones is still one-inch taller than Paul McCartney so nothing has changed. Did you see the Queen's Diamond Jubilee? They're only feet apart towards the end of the program.
AD said on 17/Jan/12
Take it from someone who's met him, shaken his hand and had a photo with him ...he was 5'9.5" ...probably more towards 5'9" these days.
Christian said on 14/Jan/12
ckashekfa- Interesting. Where did you see this video?
ckashekfa said on 12/Jan/12
I saw a video were Paul said he was "5 foot 6" but he seems to be taller... I thought he would be like 1.85 meters
Christian said on 10/Dec/11
I was on the first row watching Paul´s On The Run tour here in Stockholm, Sweden. He is quite thin but seems to be in the 5'10'' range or slightly under. He is not short, just average.

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

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

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