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 WalesOnline.co.uk 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 Comment635 comments

Average Guess (42 Votes)
Peak: 5ft 10.5in (179.1cm)
Current: 5ft 9.53in (176.6cm)
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
Rob,

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.

Regards
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
Leonardo 1.73m said on 19/Oct/16
Harrison 5'9.25
Leonardo 1.73m said on 19/Oct/16
John Lennon 5'9.5(obviously a fake 5'10 guy)

Paul McCartney:
Peak 5'10
Now 5'9
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.
Tyler said on 25/Jul/14
174cm now
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"...at 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 8...here 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.
Bruno said on 13/Apr/13
Have a look at Duke Wayne presenting an award to Macca, he makes him look like a midget. Click Here
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 ....it 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 25/Jul/12
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151044014608313&set=a.10151044014508313.474376.182736663312&type=3&theater

barlow is 5'7.5
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.
guyfrommars said on 9/Dec/11
John was definately shorter than Paul with at least half an inch. If Paul was 5'10.5" John was rather 5'10" (I'd say 5'9.5") and not the 5'10.5" listed here.
jessica eaton said on 5/Dec/11
i am a huge fan of the beatles and i even own a hard days night and the movie help
my coworkers dont like the beatles at all
joker said on 3/Dec/11
@mcfan

Agree that the fact Tom Jones was taller than them really knocked their heights down a little. They just look taller because they were fit and therefore, more lanky than the people today who are more overweight. But they are not tall people by any means.
AD said on 25/Nov/11
Yeah mcfan I agree .. and sorry, just to be clear I was saying that 5'11" for John, Paul and George was WITH their Beatle boots on, which means barefoot the 3 of them would have been around 5'9.5" (the height that Macca was at 43). Your Mother Should Know clip shows them at the same height as you say, and also the pic I posted below when they're stood together on a doorstep.
mcfan said on 24/Nov/11
Yeah, I highly doubt he shrunk by 43. Still, I think they were about 5'10 at the most. All you can say is that John and Paul were the same height as per Paul's quote and "Your Mother Should Know" video with the same shoes/outfits. If Tom Jones was truly 5'10.5, why was he taller than both John & Paul?
AD said on 20/Nov/11
I really don't think he would have shrunk an inch and a half by age 43, I'm in my 40s now and exactly the same height as in my 20s. John, Paul and George would have all 3 been 5'11" with their Beatle boots on so I guess that's what their management would have told them to say as their height, Ringo was listed as 5'8" which would have been more like 5'6.5" barefoot. If Paul was 5'9.5" at 43 then I seriously doubt he was ever any more than that ...177cm at the most.
Marc said on 19/Nov/11
i herd on the radio hes 5ft 11 there is also footage of him saying he is 5ft11 at the age of 22 but you know with age you can shrink
AD said on 17/Nov/11
Sorry Lyra, I've met Paul, stood next to him and had a photo taken on a flat surface... he was most definately 5'9.5" at that time when he was 43. I'm being incredibly honest about that, you can read my account on it if you scroll down... I must add though he was an incredibly nice person. Paul, George and John were all around the same height as you can see from this picture, maybe within a cm of each other but all 3 around 5'9.5" or a little over. The reason that Paul appeared taller a lot of the time is because he has very broad and high shoulders
Click Here
Just for comparism, this is Paul with 6'0" Tom Hanks
Click Here
I'd say 5'9" flat nowadays is about right.
Lyra said on 16/Nov/11
That can't be right! He seems much taller then John and John is 5'11 !!! i think this is wrong.
178 said on 5/Nov/11
Sir Paul McCartney is 5' 9" flat now. He still looked 5' 9.5" about 15 years ago. In fact the photo of him with Prince Charles that I previously uploaded was when Charles was 5' 9.5"... but he's also 5' 9" flat now.
Christian said on 26/Oct/11
-Rob, Do you remeber Glenns photo with Paul? Paul looked 5´8-5'9'', didn´t he?
[Editor Rob: a lot of those shots were very close, although mccartney can look 5ft 9 range at times.]
Christian said on 13/Oct/11
I belive John and Paul were 5'10ish, George a tad shorter and Ringo about 5'6''.
AD said on 11/Oct/11
Sorry to disagree there wayne77 ..but although I agree they were all the same height, that height was more 5'9.5" ...Paul was most definately that height when I met him when he was 43 so I seriously doubt he was ever any taller barefoot. 5'11" was their height with their cuban heeled boots that they wore as almost a uniform in the early years.
wayne77 said on 6/Oct/11
paul ,john and george were all 5'11.what makes this difficult to understand,is that john had the worst posture,of all of the beatles.but when he stood upright he,and paul and george,were all 5'11.
check out 'Your Mother Should Know" from MMT video,all wearing the same shoes.You could almost put a table on there heads,and it would be even.
mcfan said on 13/Sep/11
If he was ever 5'11, I'm 1-inch taller than I claim to be.
Jennifer said on 6/Sep/11
I am 5'8" and have a pic with Macca when he was 46, 47, I was in flats, he was in loafers (it was the 80s)and he is at least 2 inches taller than me. I think he is 5'11".
castillo said on 16/Aug/11
5'9"+ sounds fair enough to me. he never claimed to be more than 5'10 1/2" in the beatles and that was nearly 50 years ago. an inch shrinkage at nearly 70 would be standard and i can't blame him for adding an inch or so to his shoes when he's got tall guitarists in his band. macca has never claimed to be 6' or whatever like lots of shorty celebs who are debated on this site. maybe that's the confidence being one of the greatest songwriters ever and the object of millions of women's desires gives you.
178 said on 3/Aug/11
AD says on 31/Jul/11
@178 - unfortunately the photo hasn't survived the 25 years since it was taken, lots of moving house and travels has lost me lots of possessions! My height is 178cm barefoot, but at the time of the photo I was measured on my 16th birthday at 175cm. I met Paul a week later, I was wearing shoes with standard 2-2.5cm heel, Paul was wearing very flat 'deck' pumps which couldn't have been more than 1cm. I remember the photo very vividly cause the first thing I noticed is that the top of our heads were exactly level. As I was 175cm at the time but had 1-2cm more on footwear, this would have made Macca 176/177cm. I wish I still had the photo to show, but this is the most honest recollection I have.

That's great, sounds very descriptive.

Cheers.
Frank45 said on 1/Aug/11
Saw Paul McCartney at Comerica Park in Detroit last week, second row, center state, 30 feet away. Paul was wearing his Cuban heels and is no taller than 5'9' with his heels. Fantastic show BTW.
AD said on 31/Jul/11
@178 - unfortunately the photo hasn't survived the 25 years since it was taken, lots of moving house and travels has lost me lots of possessions! My height is 178cm barefoot, but at the time of the photo I was measured on my 16th birthday at 175cm. I met Paul a week later, I was wearing shoes with standard 2-2.5cm heel, Paul was wearing very flat 'deck' pumps which couldn't have been more than 1cm. I remember the photo very vividly cause the first thing I noticed is that the top of our heads were exactly level. As I was 175cm at the time but had 1-2cm more on footwear, this would have made Macca 176/177cm. I wish I still had the photo to show, but this is the most honest recollection I have.
178 said on 29/Jul/11
AD says on 28/Jul/11
I can very honestly say that when I met him and had a photo taken with him shoulder to shoulder when he was 43 he was 176/177 cm ... so I very much doubt he was ever taller than 177cm. Probably 175/176cm now.

I believe you. But so other people do, I don't suppose you could upload the photo and state your own height as well?

Regards.
AD said on 28/Jul/11
I can very honestly say that when I met him and had a photo taken with him shoulder to shoulder when he was 43 he was 176/177 cm ... so I very much doubt he was ever taller than 177cm. Probably 175/176cm now.
John Tak said on 22/Jul/11
He my height kool. Paul i can be your drummer when you need someone in my part of Florida ........John Tak.......www.ucandoit.info
mike said on 15/Jul/11
@Ace

Maybe his younger brother is posing as him? I think his brother is a couple inches taller than he is.
Ace said on 13/Jul/11
this would be a good place to discuss the most absurd part of the "paul is dead" theory: that the 2nd paul was a different height than the original paul. I've seen claims that the "2nd" Paul was as much as 6'1! C'mon! Like no one would notice that if it were true!?!? Thoughts?
mcfan said on 4/Jun/11
David Lynch looks 2 inches taller than Paul, not an inch.
mike said on 22/May/11
That picture with prince charles took the mystery out of it. He's the same height as 5.9 prince charles with similar footwear.
Martyr said on 22/May/11
...and Bowie wears elevator shoes, remember him next to David Lynch (a legit 5'11), they looked nearly the same height. Next to Lynch, Paul himself looks an inch shorter nowadays. He's probably closer to 5'9 and a half. But I really think he was an inch taller in his younger beatles days.
mcfan said on 17/May/11
David Bowie was not quite 5'9.5, not 5'10.
Sean said on 17/May/11
David Bowie is 5'10" just for the record
mike said on 12/May/11
@J
Very good links there. From those pics, he's 5'9" to 5'9"1/2
Looks like Dave Grohl had 4 inches on him though.
Christian said on 11/May/11
I agree with 178 that Paul look closer to 5'9'' than 5'10''. What would you say Rob?
J said on 11/May/11
No, as for the height of Paul McCartney, there is 5 ft 9.75 in when all photographs look well.
178 said on 10/May/11
This should settle it!


With 5' 9" Prince Charles: Click Here

With 5' 9" Paul Rudd: Click Here

With (questionable 5' 9") Simon Pegg: Click Here

With 5' 9" David Bowie: Click Here

With 6' 0" Dave Grohl: Click Here

With 5' 6" Ringo Starr: Click Here


Sir Paul McCartney is 5' 9" (175 cm) in truth.

He was possibly 5' 10" during The Beatles era though and could appear as tall as 5' 11" in 2" 'Beatle Boots' or Cuban heels. He wears lifts or elevator shoes on some occasions nowadays, which make him appear between 5' 10" and 5' 11" but don't be fooled.
mcfan said on 8/May/11
Click Here
todd r. brassner said on 5/May/11
the fab four were average height for blokes born c. ww2, itried on the beatle suits at the1987 sotheby's 1st rock rock auction,amongst other stuff were the beatle suits like or did wear nov. 64 on ed sullivan show,i tried on a couple,now! i'm 58 even 135lb. in 87 and not one of the suites was much larger ,or not at all,ringo i would say 5.6,john &paul 5.8-5.9,george about the same.i spent a wonderful night w/ringo and his palsc.75,john many times in nyc,i would say just shy of 5.9. but in reality they stood very high,miles and across the universe,we all got by,with a little help from these friends,won't happen again! maybe after the next ice age if hendrix is in the mix.
mcfan said on 28/Apr/11
George was slightly under John and Paul.
guyfrommars said on 23/Apr/11
McCartney is 5'10". He and George were 6' in those 2" Cuban heels in 1962-1966. John is slightly under, 5'9.5". He had a tendency to wear boots with large heels, even after the classic Beatle days were over.
Roddodg said on 9/Apr/11
John was definietly much taller than 5-6. He and Paul were around 5-11, George 5-10 and Ringo 5-6.
mcfan said on 7/Apr/11
avi, if that's only 2.5 inches between Paul and Barack then I need a new set of glasses.
avi said on 5/Apr/11
he was about 2.5 shorter than 6'1ish Obama. If Obama is missing 6'1 (like 6'0 1/2) then McCartney is 5'10 flat.He looks 5'10 though. there was a special at the white house where McCartney sang for Obama and an audience.
Fred said on 27/Mar/11
i think paul is 180cm because when he was near to michael jackson, he was a little bigger than mj that was 178cm.
AD said on 15/Mar/11
I think remove 2cm exactly from the listed 'now' and 'peak' heights above .... and that would be spot on.
mcfan said on 21/Feb/11
Optobob, yeah, he was probably even 3 inches taller than Paul in that SNL skit. However, there's a problem with Alec Baldwin. He also appears over an inch taller than Steve Martin who I don't think was ever over 5'11, but is listed here as 5'11.5. At other times stocky Alec Balwin only looks 5'11 and this is undoubtedly due to lifts.
optobob said on 20/Feb/11
Just saw 5'11" Alec Baldwin in a photo with an at least 2" shorter McCartney on the Saturday Night Live retro show.
Christian said on 9/Feb/11
Hey Rob!
I think Sam is right. Paul look closer to 5'9½'' nowdays. Sometimes I think he can look only 5'9'' but I guess that could be angles.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Sam said on 7/Feb/11
Rob, do you think 5'10" is really his current height? He has not been looking that tall

[Editor Rob: he could be 1/2 inch less now]
AD said on 14/Jan/11
The 5'10.5" that Paul mentions for both himself and John would only have been with shoes on ...5'11" with the cuban heeled Beatle boots. Peak height barefoot of 176/177cm ....nowadays 175cm.
me said on 11/Jan/11
That apple picture was altered. I saw the original and george and paul was the same height.
177lad! said on 10/Jan/11
Just seen that Pegg is listed as '175 cm maximum, possibly 174 cm' by Rob (many posters agree on 5' 8" ish).

What does that say for Sir Paul?

My opinion is 175 cm nowadays and 5' 10" during The Beatles heyday... same as Bowie.
177lad! said on 10/Jan/11
Appeared to be exactly the same height as 5' 9" (175 cm) Simon Pegg at an awards event recently.
me said on 5/Jan/11
@anon

The apple add was just a pose. None of them were exactly standing straight except for paul and ringo for artistic reasons. How boring will it be for everyone of them to be standing up straight in good posture on every shot they take?
me said on 4/Jan/11
All 3 of them are about the same height separate by .5 inch.
anon said on 4/Jan/11
John Paul and George were the same height, 5'11". Everyone has known this since 1963. But given Paul's quote that he's 5'10.5" (imagine a celebrity actually bumping DOWN his height!), there you go. Poor George looks much shorter than Paul in the new iTunes advertisements that are EVERYWHERE now, but that's a Photoshop that was done to align them properly (if you look at the original picture he's the same height as Paul).
Sam said on 3/Jan/11
At the Kennedy Center Honors, he looked about 4" under 6'1" Barack and a heeled 5'10" Michelle Obama, a bit(maybe an inch) taller than a heeled 5'6" Oprah Winfrey and maybe 2.5-3" inches taller than Merle Haggard, who appears under-average but Idk his true height. About consistent with 5'9" and change these days.
me said on 3/Jan/11
@jtm

Maybe depp has shorter legs. But it's pretty weird that depp is as tall as him because he's supposed to be 5.10. Depp is around 5.8.
jtm said on 3/Jan/11
well if mccartney had a footwear advantage over depp and is still shorter then that would make him 5'6 because depp is 5'8.
me said on 1/Jan/11
@jordan

good find. Maybe McCartney need a downgrade? I looks like Mac has more footwear too. You can tell by his hip being higher in that pic.
Jordan said on 31/Dec/10
hmmmm.... they say johnny's a 5'8 maybe a weak 5'9 guy, after seeing this i don't know what to think anymore

Click Here
me said on 21/Dec/10
@Bevyn

They looked like the 3 stooges.
Bevyn said on 20/Dec/10
Wow, they look shorter in photos and movies/TV....
me said on 14/Dec/10
@kevin

I've noticed that too.
mcfan said on 13/Dec/10
Anonymous, that's simply not true. John is taller than Paul in the Abbey Road walk that I'm sure you're referencing. It only takes some quick glance to see John is hunched with his hands in his pockets and Paul is walking on his heels barefoot. How you come up with 1.5 inches for Paul and not almost an inch for John tells me you have not studied the Abbey Road footage. John is clearly taller than Paul on the album cover. There is an incline in the road left to right. To quote Macca's own words, or rather, to summarize it we were both 5'10.5.
TallGuy said on 13/Dec/10
Looked about two to three inches shorter than Jimmy Fallon, who is nearly six feet tall, so I would say Paul is currently 5'9" and some change.
Anonymous said on 12/Dec/10
in an old beatles poster that I have there walking in a line and lennon is wearing shoes and mccartney is barefoot and he's about 1 and 1/2 shorter than lennon...he's shrunken since... so he's about 5'8 1/2 at night and 5'11 in the morning.
mcfan said on 11/Dec/10
Here is the video you mentioned:

Click Here
Lefty said on 10/Dec/10
It is so strange that I asked the question how tall is he and obviously many others were wondering the same thing. I noticed that Paul McCartney seemed so much shorter than Jimmy Fallon.
Christian said on 10/Dec/10
Standing next to Jimmy Fallon, Paul lokked 5'9'' but it could have been the angle.
Kevin said on 10/Dec/10
Fallon was swearing heeled dress shoes, while Paul was wearing flat tennis shoes
AD said on 10/Dec/10
That would make sense cause Macca is most definately 5'9.5"
smegma said on 10/Dec/10
Just saw him on Jimmy Fallon and Fallon (listed at 5'11.75" is easily 2-3 inches taller.
elaine pappas said on 10/Dec/10
paul mcCartney is not 5 10 standing next to jimmy fallon paul is 2 inchs shorter then fallon
Mack said on 10/Dec/10
John and Paul both 5'6, George was 5'3 and Ringo is 4'11".

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.