How tall is Mick Jagger

Redpillangel said on 26/Nov/23
Mick looks *exactly* like my husband from the neck down and my hubbie is 5'81/2. Our son is 5'10" and looks taller in photos. Mick is wearing elevator shoes in concerts.

Arch Stanton said on 24/May/23
No page for Ronnie Wood Rob?? He made Rod Stewart look tallish the other night at the Jeff Beck concert! Though in fairness he did have a guitar around his neck. If he was ever 5 ft 9 he's certainly nowhere near it nowadays! Probably in 5 ft 7 range nowadays. Rod was actually looking about 5 ft 11 with him, perhaps he was wearing "magical" shoes..

Nile Song said on 20/May/23
Very unlikely he was below 5'10 peak. Just slightly shorter than Paul McCartney today I think, but possibly not even shorter:
Click Here
Click Here
I'll still go with just 5'10 but very easily could be 5'10.25 considering he looks taller than John Lennon and George Harrison.

Philip Z said on 3/May/23
With 5ft 10 listed Harry Styles in 2015: Click Here

Footwear isn't visible, but other pictures taken at the same event show Jagger in regular sneakers. Jagger was 72 at the time, and still pulls off 5ft 10 range. Difficult to believe that he would have been below 5ft 10 in his prime. For what it's worth, back in 85 Jagger always seemed to edge 5ft 9.75 listed Bowie as well.

Sandy Cowell said on 1/Feb/23
Kids in my class at school reckoned Mick was ‘tiny’, but I think they were talking about his proportions. They said the same about David Bowie.

5ft10.

Paul 177 cm said on 26/Jul/22
On the new BBC series about The Rolling Stones at 60, they showed 2 passport profiles.

One from age 15/16 where Mick was listed 5' 7.5".

And the other from adulthood where he was listed 5' 10".

Chris Poulson said on 9/Jul/22
According to Jagger's passport it has him at 5.7.5"

Philip Z said on 12/Jun/22
Another addition to the Hardy discussion:

w/ 5ft 7 Jacques Dutronc: Click Here

Given the advantage in heels, she looks closer to 5ft 8 than 5ft 9 here.

w/ 5ft 6.5 Bob Dylan: Click Here

Hardy has a heel advantage of roughly half an inch. If we take away Bob's hair, Hardy looks around 2.5 inches taller, which would put her around 5ft 8.5.

Hence, if Jagger is to be 5ft 10, she'd have to have a footwear advantage of roughly 1-1.5 inches on him.

Philip Z said on 21/May/22
@Sinclair

I've looked into Hardy a bit more, she's difficult to nail down.

w/ 6ft 1.5 James Garner: Click Here

No footwear to be seen unfortunately. I see roughly 2.5-3 inches between them, which would put her around 5ft 11-10.5. Accordingly, she'd need close to 2 inches in heels on Garner (assuming his footwear gives him an inch) if she were just 5ft 8 flat.

Next to 5ft 8-7.5 listed Salvador Dali: Click Here

Footwear for Dali is difficult to identify, but Hardy is in flats yet still looks a good inch taller. The perspective is somewhat iffy too, but at least 5ft 9 for Hardy seems likely based on this comparison.

Dutronc has a decent heel going on even in the first picture. Overall, peak Hardy must be somewhere between 5ft 8 and 5ft 10, with a weak 5ft 9 being the most likely scenario. In the Jagger picture, she has probably an inch of footwear on him, so 5ft 10 for Jagger and 5ft 9 for Hardy seems like a good shout.

Sinclair said on 19/May/22
Rob, I would like to second a page for Françoise Hardy.

The photo of her and Jagger perplexes me as I had long been under the impression of a weak 5’8” for her and 5’10” for Jagger. However, she is standing straighter in the photo and is probably assisted by a bit of extra footwear and perhaps ground level, so I would still say around 5’8” peak. She wasn’t too much taller than 5’7” Jacques Dutronc when in similar footwear.

w/Jacques Dutronc Click Here
w/Dutronc (sense Hardy has heels on) Click Here
w/Dutronc (again footwear in Hardy’s favour) Click Here

Philip Z said on 28/Apr/22
With 5ft 10.5 listed Françoise Hardy: Click Here

Certainly looks it if we believe the listing for Hardy. By the way Rob, would you mind adding Hardy? Very popular French singer.

Jake Aughey said on 14/Feb/22
Rob in your opinion who would’ve been a stronger 5’10, Jagger or John Lennon ?

mannev said on 13/Feb/22
Mick looks 5' 10" compared to his peers, like Bowie, Clapton, and the 3 front line Beatles.

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 2/Feb/22
That's the nicest thing I've heard all night: "She's like a rainbow." 🌈

5ft10.

Public Enemy said on 5/Sep/21
@Ian C. Nice one! Today you have him at 5’9. What do you think his peak height was?

Tall Sam said on 5/Sep/21
I think the young Mick Jagger is objectively attractive to most people despite his unusual features like his large mouth & lips. Would he have been such a successful womanizer if he wasn’t the frontman of The Rolling Stones, maybe or maybe not. Mick was also a tad taller than any of the Stones sans probably Mick Taylor but that’s not saying much.

Ian C. said on 4/Sep/21
Hello, Public Enemy. Jumpin' Jack Flash is not only one of the best pieces of music ever conceived by the mind of man, it's a rock 'n' roll song. Maybe the best rock 'n' roll song ever written and performed. Gets you up and struttin' with the first three bars, never lets you go, and then ends before you get tired of it. My parents didn't like it much, especially after the thousandth time I played it.

Public Enemy said on 3/Sep/21
Just listening to Jumpin Jack Flash which was my mum’s favorite back in the day. Absolute classic.

Peak 5’10
current 5’9.5

He’s hardly lost any

Ian C. said on 2/Sep/21
Jagger is an extreme endopene, which is the technical term for someone with very little body fat. He seems quite muscular, but is so fleshless that he has always seemed emaciated. He probably has put on less than five pounds since he was twenty, which is very rare.

How many people are truly ugly? Very few, and in fact beautiful people vastly outnumber ugly people. (Most adults are plain, although still reasonably attractive.) Jagger is ugly. He fits the description of Robert Louis Stevenson's Mr. Hyde, who is described as physically repellent, even though he has no obvious deformities.

Ian C. said on 1/Sep/21
He seemed to be four inches shorter than James Fox in Performance, which would make him five foot nine.

MarathonMan said on 29/Aug/21
Rob, I guess Charlie Watts - we all regret his death - wasn't 5'8'' at the age of 80. How tall was he then? I guess 5'7''. What do you think?

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 26/Aug/21
Apologies:

That should have read that there will be a gaping hole in Mick's and the other Stones' lives as of yesterday.

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 25/Aug/21
There will be a gaping hole in Mick's and the other Stones members as of yesterday. Sadly, drummer Charlie Watts has passed on. How sad. 😢

Mick can have 5ft10. 🎶

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 25/Aug/21
Very sadly, the drummer of the Rolling Stones, Charlie Watts, has died at the age of 80. 😢

He played on all the Rolling Stones albums, joining the rock group in 1963. He married his wife, Shirley Ann Shepherd, in 1964 and was faithful to her, turning down the favours offered by groupies.

He leaves behind his beloved Shirley, daughter Seraphina and granddaughter, Charlotte.

Charlie stood 173cm tall and his full name was Charles Robert Watts. 🥁

RIP Charlie. 🕯️ XXX
(2nd June 1941 - 24th August 2021).

Much sympathy to his family and to his band members and friends.

Ven all said on 25/Aug/21
Mick is a very slim build gives the appearance of being tall 5ft 7 max

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/May/21
Jagger's not short, he's just dated a lot of tall women...in his prime a little over 5ft10 wouldn't surprise me...

Arch Stanton said on 2/May/21
Never got the short claims for Mick, even in the above photo he doesn't look proportionally like a short guy, you'd guess 5'10-5'11 just looking at him. I think journalists were jealous of the stunning tall women and coloured lives guys like Mick and Rod Stewart etc had. Must have been amazing to be Mick back in the 60s and 70s, though one suspects that many of the groupies he and many rock stars had during that period were underage, even if many 14-15 year old girls on a drunk night out could pass for 17!

AnonymousContributor said on 21/Jan/21
Exactly 5ft 6. Michael Holding told me he is shorter than 5ft6 at most. He knows him and took photos together at events.
But the owner of this site won’t allow anyone to submit less than 5ft 8.

EJohn said on 21/Dec/20
My brother worked on an album with Mick Jagger in the 1980s. Spent 3-4 days with Mick. Mick was 5'6" at best. My bro repeatedly remarked how short Mick was, because in the promo of the time, one had the sense he was far taller. That said, he also noted that Mick was a really pleasant guy, an excellent producer (his role in that album) and not anywhere so self-impressed as many famous rockers. Far more intelligent, too, than his 'Mockney' image suggests.

By the way, you only let me guess that he was 5'8"! Rubbish - 5'6" at best, on my brother's grave.

berta said on 6/Dec/20
is he still 5´10 today? i saw him perform on " saturday nigh live" back in 1975 today and thought he didnt look short. i would have guessed him 179 cm from seing that. rob maybe he was little over 5+10 and today maybe 5´9 1/2? maybe lost 3/4. He is 77 years old.

Nathaniel Strunk said on 17/Nov/20
Well, I'm around 5'ft 9" 1/2 inches, so that Proves that Mick Jagger is Exactly 5'ft 10" 1/4 inches, which means He's slightly Taller than ME, with a even more Talented, SINGING - Voice!?!

Malcom McDowell said on 30/Oct/20
Current height 177 peak height anything between 178.5 to 179. In his younger days he had a very good posture, slim frame and wore boots , that’s why I always thought of him as a 5’11 guy.

Damon Albarn said on 28/Oct/20
No peak height? I mean he still looks the same but he's 77 years old he might have shrunk a bit.
I think that he was at least 5'10 when he was young, the reason why he looked taller in the 60s is because: 1) He wore heeled boots, just like almost every other rockstars in that period 2) The average height in Britain was only 5'7 back then.
My guess is peak height 178 cm and current height 176.5 cm

greg2345 said on 24/Sep/20
My brother worked on road crew for the Steel Wheels tour there is no way he is 5'10" my brother used to have a picture they took in Dallas with the crew and he was tiny maybe 5'8 or 7.

Simon, 180.5 cm said on 9/Sep/20
Anyone know how tall he might have been with heels during the 60s? I feel as though he probably walked around like a 6 footer a lot of the time

anomalous said on 24/Aug/20
give him an upgrade 5ft 10.25

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 26/Jul/20
🎁🎂🎉🎶 Happy Birthday Mick! 🎶🎉🎂🎁

Wishing Sir Mick Jagger a Very Happy Birthday. He celebrates his 7️⃣7️⃣th Birthday today. Have a great time, Mick! XXX

🎧🎵🎤😯🎈

5ft9.75, but 5ft10 peak.

🎁🎂🎉🎶🎁🎂🎉🎶🎁🎂🎉🎶🎁🎂🎉🎶

Mon said on 24/Sep/19
Cast of Performance (Palenberg, Fox) was tall. Jagger looks a good height beside them so this seems right, but it surprised me. Something about his proportions must give the impression of a much shorter man.

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 26/Jul/19
🎈🎧🎂🎁 Happy Birthday Mick! 🎁🎂🎧🎈

Today is Mick Jagger's 76th Birthday. Have a great one, you original, tireless bundle of energy! 👅

5ft10 peak.

🍰🕯️🎶🎁🍰🕯️🎶🎁🍰🕯️🎶🎁🍰🕯️🎶🎁

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 1/Jul/19
@ Phrygian - Yes, I think that 5ft10 would probably have been considered fairly tall in the Sixties. My boyfriend's Mum (4ft11) knew him and he almost became my loved one's Godfather!

Mick can have 5ft9.5. 🎼🎵🎧😁💝

I would think that EVERYBODY wore great big platforms in the Sixties and Seventies! I wore them in the Seventies, but never fell off them - not even once! I could walk for miles in them. The kids called me "Big Feet" which is kind of strange because I am only size 3! 😁👍

Phrygian said on 10/Apr/19
Mick often gave off a tall impression on stage. Indeed, he wore boots that boasted his height by several centimeters, but I think his build had a lot to do with it as well. I wonder however if a 5'10-guy like him would have been regarded as tall in the UK in the 1960s.

Dean H said on 5/Apr/19
He's very short now--no more than 5'5" I saw him just before his girlfriend died--she loomed over him. He had nike sneakers with giant lifts in them and was still 5'5"

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 25/Mar/19
⭐️ As far as the mocking of Mick Jagger's appearance goes, I'm glad to say that it didn't have any affect on the way he was a hit with the women! I do remember that, but never took any notice. His lustful leer was referred to by this Tom Wolfe person doubtless through sheer jealousy. Mick's a charmer and an individual.

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 25/Mar/19
@ Ian C - Blimey! I couldn't agree more that the writing of original songs goes hand in hand with a high IQ. When I was 3 and 4 and the Beatles were making it big, there were some teenagers who wanted the free Beatles pictures that came with my Rice Krispies breakfast cereal, and I can still remember how their faces lit up when I gave the pictures to them! Most of them had the hots for Paul, but when I was old enough, I liked ALL OF THEM. I have solo material by John, Paul and George and the solo hits by Ringo were also highly original and of an exceptionally high quality, eg 'Photograph'.

If I had to choose a favourite, I'd plump for George, but they're all good in their own right. It would now be possible to go the Google route and find the interviews I missed out on as a small kid.

As for the Stones, I started buying their records when I was 15. I never knew that Mick deliberately waived his 'educated' accent in favour of a working class one! I've had the ¶i$$ taken out of me because of my accent, and a young fellow tried to give me 'lessons' to 'Cockneyfy' my speech. They didn't work, and besides, my Mum would have hit the roof! I went to a private school, where it was normal to speak properly. When I left school, I genuinely didn't understand that you are largely judged by how you speak. Being a fan of heavy rock, I hung out in bars in the East End of London, where they noticed my accent straight away. Many of them liked it though, but I STILL didn't understand what the big deal was until I moved there for three years and was sometimes called a 'snob', so I can understand why Mick Jagger decided to do something about the way he spoke. David Bowie, on the other hand, did not!

As always, it's been a pleasure speaking with you Ian!

All the very best!

Sandy xxx 😁👍

Ian C. said on 24/Mar/19
Actually, sandy, I have always assumed that the ability to write a hit song would correlate closely with higher I.Q. Lennon and McCartney must have been very sharp guys, and in fact one of my favourite videos is the one where American journalists meet the Beatles at LaGuardia, fully expecting to ambush and expose them as working class dullards, only to be ambushed by the boys instead, who turn out to be a lot quicker and funnier than the snobs had expected.

As for Jagger, he has been accused of adopting a working class accent that was not his by right of birth, in an attempt to emulate the Beatles' real working class bona fides.

Wolfe's description of the Stones (apparently derived from his first reaction to them, having never seen them before) can be found in his story, "Girl of the year." In it he describes Jagger as a boy so thin that the t-shirt he is wearing threatens to slip over one of his shoulders. His lips hang off his face like chicken giblets and, when relaxed, his expression becomes a concupiscent leer. (That is not an exact quote, but it's pretty close, as I remember it.)

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 22/Mar/19
@ Ian C - Regarding what Tom Wolfe said, what a load of tish! Mick Jagger is a highly educated man, and to write and co-write songs of that exceptional quality, he is in a class of his own! Even my Dad says that he is a very clever guy.

The Stones were one of the first bands that I got into. In their early interviews, Mick used to say "You know..." a great deal, but that could have been slight nerves. Now he is able to talk at great length in a thoroughly intellectual capacity, befitting of the educated man he is. It's just as well that he'll have had the confidence to laugh off jibes like those made by Wolfe.

Cheers Ian! 😁👍

5ft10 for Magic Mick - peak height.

Ian C. said on 20/Mar/19
Tom Wolfe once described the Stones as like the Beatles, "only more lower class deformed." Jagger began as solidly middle class and went to the London School of Economics, so Wolfe was revealing a nasty bias about class, but Mick really is kind of odd-looking. His head looks too big for his body, which might contribute to the impression that he was short.

Joerg Smith said on 19/Jan/19
Can't believe he doesn't have a peak height at 75 1/2 years old.

Bradley said on 15/Jan/19
Jones at 5' 5"? That's wild. I never realized he was that short.

rob61 said on 6/Jan/19
It's ridiculous none of the Stones where ever over 175 cm, sooner below, MT the tallest BJ the smallest, it's also ridiculous that Keiths doauthers where over 170 !. I ve met them beow 165 !! and I'm 175

IRememberWhenRockWasYoung said on 21/Aug/18
How much do you think he weights? Some sites have him at 161lbs which is absolutley ridiculous . I doubt he's even 120lbs.

Bradley said on 16/Aug/18
Keith on the '72 tour was wearing heeled boots that would make Stallone blush.

Anaheim1999 said on 6/Jun/18
All of the Stones members were in the average/lower average height range, except for maybe Mick Taylor who might have been a strong 5'11/weak 6 foot. If Brian Jones was 5'6 then that would have counted as an average height range for a male in the UK in the 1960s. I myself, have never seen any photos where Brian looks more than 4 inches shorter than the rest of the group, he even stacks well up against Jagger in some photos.

michael cribb said on 9/Apr/18
mick jagger in he's youth 5'10
keith richards in he's youth 5'9
charlie watts in he's youth 5'8
bill wyman in he's youth 5'7
brian jones in he's youth 5'5
and that was from bill wyman himself in kensington in 1993 who i met and said brian and he wore boots to look taller

MaryAnne said on 17/Jan/18
Rob can you add L'Wren Scott? She was a giant.

Allie said on 10/Jan/18
Hi Rob! Thanks for your opinion! Upon further inspection I think 179-180 cm might be too low. Maybe 183/6'0 is a better guess?

In similar boots/heels with Ana Beatriz, Ana H and Camilla Belle:

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here

Allie said on 8/Jan/18
His mistress Luicana also looked much taller tham Camilla Belle and Drew Barrymore when all three were wearing heels (no platform i think).

Allie said on 8/Jan/18
Rob, how tall is Luciana Gimenez? A Brazilian model whose affair with Mick ended his marriage.

She's in her late 40s now and I've seen sites describe her as 179-181 cm but she looks slightly taller than Ana Beatriz Barros and can hold her own against Ana Hickmann.

One thing is for sure though, From L'Wren Scott to Jerry and Sophie Dahl He sure has a thing for tall women!

Anonymous said on 21/Dec/17
5'10" for MR. Jagger sounds accurate in his prime. Except for Mick Taylor, he was the tallest Stone.

KH said on 21/Sep/17
Mick Jagger was 5'10 in his prime. This is a serious height site it's never off by serveral inches. So to say Mick Jagger could be 5'5-5'7 range is ridiculous. Its like the Tom Cruise nonsense with some people except Mick is taller. I would imagine Mick is about 5'9.5 these days.

Travis said on 14/Aug/17
How is it that Mick Jagger remains 5'10" at 75 years old while 75 year old Paul McCartney has shrunk from 5'10.25" to 5'9.5"?

Nik said on 3/Jun/17
Her legs look never ending!

Hyde said on 3/May/17
He always had rather low, narrow shoulders. Peak height 5' 9.5''.

Sam said on 20/Apr/17
I know it's hard to tell because of his big heels but I'd assume some height loss with age. I'd doubt over 5'9" seeing him with 5'11" Tom Waits.

terran said on 23/Mar/17
Passed Mick Jagger in the street early 70s and no way was he any taller than about 5'8''.

mister_lennon said on 28/Feb/17
Peak:176-177
Now:174-175

Charlie said on 26/Feb/17
Mick jagger is more like 5'5/ In boots he can look 5'7.

Mick jaggar said on 22/Feb/17
All short men in the band. But the best band in the world! Mick is around 5'7" look at his proportions and his head is pretty large. No possibility he is 5'10, he doesn't look over 5'7" even in boots.

sean kellehr said on 7/Feb/17
If you look at the scene in rock and roll circus where keith lennon Clapton and others are on a small stage together keith is barefoot and is taller than especially lennon and lennon is presumed to be 5' 10" that would make keith about 6' tall. Tells me these height estimates are all overinflated.

Felipe said on 17/Jan/17
Peak height was 5ft 10in.

height lover said on 17/Jan/17
his wife's height is fake, she's billed as 6'11 on google but she's slightly taller than him on high heels but i would say his max height is about 5'10 definetely.

HonestSlovene said on 17/Jan/17
Jagger was 178 cm peak (5'10.25"), now about 175.5 cm or (5'9.25"). 178 cm back then was considered like 181-182 cm today or above average/upper average (175 cm was average) today average is about 3 cm more or 178 cm. But yeah Chris 6'0" was a go to height back then for legit 5'10" -ers (Lennon, Morrison, Jagger etc.)and is still is today.

Chris said on 27/Dec/16
And Jagger has definitely lost some height. If you see pictures of him in the 1970s he's taller than Jerry Hall (6 foot tall).

Jagger was definitely considered a "6 footer" in the 1960s and 1970s. He was always seen as a tall man back then.

Just look at a picture of him in the 1970s with Jerry Hall and tell me he's under 6 foot...He looks 6 foot or 6'1 back then

Chris said on 27/Dec/16
I met Mick Jagger on holiday in Barbados. He's easily 5'10. Very solid. I was surprised how tall he was flat footed (we were on a beach)

If you look at pictures of him with his supermodel girlfriends he's obviously a tall-ish man. I think it's stupid to think he's under 5'10 even now in his 70s. He's not

RealDeal said on 25/Dec/16
Good posture, access to the best quality foods and healthcare/fitness routines. 5ft10, not lost any height.
He is 10 ft tall in what he has achieved

Sandy Cowell said on 12/Oct/16
I thought Mick was 5ft9 at his peak, from what I had read in newspapers and magazines! How come his daughter Georgia May is only 5ft6, when she has such a tall mother? It must be from Mick's side! Sorry Mick!

rodmeister said on 11/Aug/16
I literally ran into Mick Jagger head-on in front of the British Airways Lounge at Los Angeles Airport as we both came around a corner. Having read he was 5' 7" I was surprised how tall he was to my 5' 6.5". As we looked at each other in surprise, his eyes were at least two inches higher than mine - he appeared about 5' 9", but I have no idea if he was wearing boots or lifts.

truth said on 30/Jun/16
Next to 177 cm peak Bowie in the "Dancing in the Street" video he looked 179 cm so possibly he was 179 cm peak Rob?

dayhide said on 24/Jun/16
Worked with a guy who was in the USAF in the late sixties who had a military cargo flight layover on the Island of Fiji and the crew was housed at an expensive hotel. Just so happened The Rolling Stones were there, either on holiday or tour, and were sitting out by the hotel pool. This person had no interest in music or the Stones, so it's very probable he is truthful in his report which said: "I heard of the Rolling Stones...I thought they'd be big, husky dudes...****!...they were all a bunch of little dried-up ****ers!..no taller than this! (holds hand to his neck indicating about 5 feet 6 inches). "We were drinking and splashing in the pool while they were sitting around playing some guitars, and their girlfriends were smiling at us wanting to join in...but they had some big, mean looking bodyguards who were not happy with us being there." Based on this I'm guessing Mick wears lift shoes to get 5' 8" height. On stage the lights and moving around masks his height.

Cc rider said on 13/May/16
I worked as a 'local crew' guy on their '82 European Tour...I am 5'10" and was around 160 at the time....I was bigger than all of them

Bill said on 28/Mar/16
"My wife, 5'10" refused to serve Mr Jagger because he was so short."

David, I understand some women don't like shorter men but how could a hooker afford to be so picky?

Gus Mu. said on 12/Feb/16
I had seats right next to the small stage out front on the '97 tour; after the rest of the band walked across the bridge back to the main stage, he was still there waiting for Sympathy for the Devil to start and I got to see him from about 10 ft away. He has a very slight build (was dwarfed by bodyguards) and is definitely above 5-9 but probably nowhere north of 5-10 but can look it b/c of thick shoes & good posture. Said in a magazine interview in the early 80's he was just 125 lb.

PetePro said on 12/Jan/16
Re. Mick Jagger: Without being offensive, I hope, Mick has a large head and short legs. Hence looks, I believe, much shorter than he is.

Sam said on 3/Dec/15
My impression is that Jagger peaked around 5'9.5" but never was he a real solid 5'10", he just looked too close to Richards too often. He rarely goes anywhere now without his lifted sneakers is my impression, so he looks taller relative to Richards now IMO than he did 40-50 years ago!

Mick Junior said on 20/Nov/15
"My wife, 5' 10" refused to serve Mr Jagger because he was so short."

Huh? What....? LOL

David said on 15/Nov/15
My wife, 5' 10" refused to serve Mr Jagger because he was so short. His credit card proved he really was Mick. My ex girlfriend went to school with him, and said he was 5'6". Brad has never met him...

jtm said on 7/Nov/15
rob is he also known for tiptoeing? he was clearly taller than cate blanchett and she was wearing heels. he was most likely wearing lifts but the difference shouldn't have been that noticeable but then again g claimed blanchett was 5'5!

Boog Powell said on 5/Nov/15
Mick is 6' 6" and twenty stone, a best of a man!

an anonymous peach said on 8/Sep/15
BreeDee said on 26/Mar/15
My coworker met him at a resort back in the 90s and she was shocked by his appearance. My coworker is very petite (5'4" tops) and she said Mick Jagger was no taller than she was. She described him as "tiny and shrunken" and she had no reason to lie about this stuff, as she's not really into classic rock. She just seemed really matter-of-fact about it, so I believe her.

Reminds me of meeting Ray Davies back in 2009. I'm 5'3" and I hugged him and that man is no more than 5'8", if I'm being generous. Very tiny, very small, though he's listed as 5'11" on this site (yeah right!!).

---------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the laugh.

CarbSnarfer said on 14/Aug/15
Hard to peg because of his odd build but has always seemed north of 5-9 but no more than a weak 5-10

The Truth said on 9/Jul/15
His fans say 5'10"
In reality, "shortlikeMick" is correct.

AlexR said on 5/Jul/15
looks 5'8.5 with ed sheeren but sheeren has on air max's I think mick is only 5'9-5'9.5 nowadays Click Here

ShortlikeMick said on 29/Jun/15
I stood right next to Jagger backstage at the Stones concert last night. He wasn't dressed yet to perform and was wearing flats. He is 5'6" at the most but more likely closer to 5'4"or 5'5". I'm not quite 5'5" and we were eye-to-eye. No question about it, he's not 5'7" much less 5'9" or taller like some here have said. He's simply not.

Tr27 said on 27/Jun/15
Assuming that he is wearing 5 to 7cm lifts, Jagger is at least 1.72m nowadays. The guy was most likely 1.75m at his peak.

Ferrous said on 18/Jun/15
He looked to have an inch and maybe change on Springsteen when they sang together in Hyde Park a couple of years ago. I'd vote for about 5-9 and 7/8. Saw the Stones last week and he is incredible. He probably has genes similar to an elite athlete to be that mobile at 71. Truly moves like someone half his age.

James B said on 5/Jun/15
I bet you had a good chuckle at the video rob LOL

James B said on 3/Jun/15
Rob he looks more 5'10.5 in this video with david Bowie or maybe Bowie was more 5'9.5 peak?


Click Here

Certified Genius said on 21/Apr/15
he's in lift shoes in that picture, mick jagger is at most 5'5"" in stocking feet

mande2013 said on 18/Apr/15
Going by peak heights:

Jagger-5'10
Richards-5'9
Watts-5'8
Wyman-5'6
Brian Jones-5'6

BreeDee said on 26/Mar/15
My coworker met him at a resort back in the 90s and she was shocked by his appearance. My coworker is very petite (5'4" tops) and she said Mick Jagger was no taller than she was. She described him as "tiny and shrunken" and she had no reason to lie about this stuff, as she's not really into classic rock. She just seemed really matter-of-fact about it, so I believe her.

Reminds me of meeting Ray Davies back in 2009. I'm 5'3" and I hugged him and that man is no more than 5'8", if I'm being generous. Very tiny, very small, though he's listed as 5'11" on this site (yeah right!!).

VegasBitch said on 9/Mar/15
I me.t him 25 years ago. I am 5'3" and he wasn't much taller than me, maybe 5'6"

Alex said on 15/Nov/14
5'9.5 nowadays

jamie179cm said on 9/Oct/14
no more than 5ft9

Jones said on 3/Aug/14
Craig Ferguson called him "quite small, little and tiny", i doubt he's 5'10.

Arch Stanton said on 1/Aug/14
@Sam Remember though he is very fit and eats well and takes care of himself these days though so he might not lose as much. He's crazy skinny though, 28 waist for anybody over the age of 20 is skinny minny!

Arch Stanton said on 1/Aug/14
Rob you might want to mention his weight at 140 pounds with a 28 waist which was originally reported in the Daily Express Click Here

Mini said on 10/Jul/14
Rob, can you please add Georgia May Jagger to the site? She's listed as 5'7 by TESS Management, her mother agency but as 5'8 by IMG New York. She also states quite often that she's the same height as her friend Cara Delevingne. People in the fashion industry do think she's only about 5'6 though. I think she'd be an interesting page to discuss. Thank you!

Sam said on 8/Jul/14
Rob, is it possible that just over 5'9" is a better listing? Keith Richards is a listed 5'9" and Jagger rarely if ever looks a full inch taller, often they seme quite close in height.

Brad said on 8/Jul/14
He is 5 feet 10 like he was 50 years ago.

Orlando said on 6/Jul/14
From Christopher Andersen's "Mick: The Wild Life and Mad Genius of Jagger" (page 51): «Although Jagger seemed larger than life on the stage, up close he was anything but: five feet nine inches tall and 130 pounds, with a head that was disproportionately large for his slight frame.» -- 5'9" and probably with some sort of elevated shoes on. So I guess Jagger must have been between 1.72 m and 1.75 m maximum. Those 5'10" are pure fantasy.

Sandra said on 5/Apr/14
I met him in the late 1960's....he was definitely 5'10" but no more than that.

Sam said on 3/Apr/14
Mick seems to wear sneakers with lifts a lot recently. In whatever that super-group was with 5'10" Joss Stone, she'd be performing barefoot and he'd look a solid 2 inches taller thanks to his shoes. Also with the other Stones, he seems to have few inches more than he used. Kind of in keeping with Keith Richards' derisive comments in "Life" about Jagger being obsessed with his appearance.
Here he's wearing them next to L'Wren (RIP):
Click Here

Orlando said on 19/Mar/14
You people should adopt metric system for good. These ft&in is totally unscientific and misleading. A 2.54 cm difference is quite significant heightwise. A fellow 1.70 m tall is short, but one with 1.72 m can be considered average.

Orlando said on 19/Mar/14
@Ceej Jagger at 6ft? Man, you must be tripping...

Orlando said on 18/Mar/14
Mcfan says on 8/Nov/13: «5'7 is absurd. I think he's 5'10 in sneakers.» -- If he definitely wears elevated sneakers/shoes granting him extra 5 to 7 cm, then the 5'7" is not that absurd. One can see in this photo that Jagger is a short-legged man and short-legged man are mostly on the bellow average range. Scott was not towering over him as you can see she had bent her legs to look shorter next to him.

Ian C. said on 1/Feb/14
This is an interesting thread because there is disagreement from various people who claim to have met him about Jagger's height. So I'm thinking, maybe some of these witnesses (the ones who are claiming that Jagger is short) met Ron Wood, and mistook him for Jagger. Richards, Wood and Jagger now share an eerie facial resemblance. Shame, that, because those gents are ugly. They all look like Mr. Hyde.

doc said on 15/Jan/14
I stood next to him backstage at mile high voodoo lounge tour. I'm 6 foot and he probably came up to my chin. Little old Englishman. Greatest experience in my stage security gig!

Al Al said on 14/Jan/14
Interesting photo of Mick with (apparently) 6-1.5 Chuck Berry here. We can't see their footwear exactly, but it makes you wonder about the 5-10 claim.
Click Here
Click Here

lelman said on 2/Jan/14
He always looked taller than Bowie to me. Definitely not under 5'10".

Brad said on 4/Dec/13
Bloody ell debating Mick still?: he's been 5 feet 10 for decades.

Mcfiesty said on 1/Nov/13
He's 5'10. Those people putting 5'7 and under you guys have to be ****ing kidding me.

Robby D said on 21/Sep/13
Keith Richards was never taller than Mick Jagger. Bill Wyman said that Mick was always the tallest in the Stones and he did not want to highlight it too much so he went back to flat shoes when the others were wearing Cuban heels. Wyman was with the Stones over 28 years so he ought to know.

Sam said on 20/Sep/13
If Jagger was as low as 5'9" at peak, then John Lennon was around 5'9.5". I know people have guessed that height for Lennon but if he was an inch under his listing a lot of other people need an inch shaved off as well: McCartney, David Bowie...anyway, my two cents are that Jagger was around 5'9.5" and Lennon right at the 5'10" mark.
Click Here

greta said on 7/Aug/13
My husband is 5'11 and he was standing next to Jagger, who was about 1 inch shorter. Jagger also wears lifts in his shoes so he must be around 5'9/5'8.5

Ceej said on 1/Jul/13
Mick's easily the tallest in the entire group. And Ron Wood is 5'8 and Keith is 5'9.

Come on. He's easily 5'10 even approaching 70 years of age. He was probably 6 foot in his 20s

Robby D said on 6/May/13
Rob. I am reading the book, "MICK" The Wild Life and Mad Genius of Jagger by Christopher Anderson and in chapter 3 at the bottom of page 51, it describes Jagger in 1963 as being, five feet nine inches tall and 130 pounds. He was about nineteen at that time

jimbo said on 29/Apr/13
Thought all the Stones were petite. When you see the images of the famous court cases, Mick and Keef are well dwarfed by those around them. Still, giants in their own way.

Mickavellian said on 28/Apr/13
I am 5'7" and my dad is 5'10" on the spot. On the shoot for "Waiting for a friend" he wore Capezzios" (totally flat shoes) he was taller than me about my dad's height and I was around him for a good hour. Jagger's height was not an issue, his laughter is something that you cannot believe. He has that "he, he ,back of throat gurgle, rasp rasp" that you attribute to nerds and geeks. Besides that shock, he seemed quite mellow, non-superstar, skinny as hell. Now he's wearing sneakers with a 2" lift (for what I see online) But boy that laughter. BTW in the UK small refers to frame not to height.

peacetruth1 said on 5/Mar/13
check out his jumpsuit in NYC's Rock and Roll Museum. It's for a petite, slender person. My husband met him once. He can't be more than 5ft.5 or 5ft. 6!

truth178cm said on 15/Feb/13
5ft9-10. 5ft6? Stop trolling.

psychopeace said on 18/Dec/12
i love jagger but he never stood more then 5 foot 6 at most...his PRESENCE IS LIKE 50 feet however!

El said on 2/Dec/12
I had a flight with him, AA first class Miami to London and I can't imagine him being more that 5'5". Even if he was slumping down there's no way he's more than 5'6" in his stocking feet.

Brad said on 4/Nov/12
As listed, always has been the past 50 years.

MaskDeMasque said on 3/Nov/12
From what I've seen of videos and photos, i think 5'9.

BlueZone said on 23/Sep/12
He's scrawny,too much into the veins.And to think Jerry Hall is 6'0

MBH said on 2/Sep/12
He looked quite tall when he appeared on SNL, nevertheless I still think he is 5'9

terran said on 23/Aug/12
Agree with Petrus. Passed Mick in the street circa 1973 and there's no way he was any taller than 5'7.

mcfan said on 24/Nov/11
Mick is 5'9 was 5'9.5.

Frankenstuff said on 18/Nov/11
They should have called themselves "The Rolling Shorts"

Petrus said on 17/Nov/11
Jagger was 5'7" when I knew him back in the late 60's so I doubt he's grown since then. Richards is about the same. Wood and Wyman about 5'6" and Watts 5'4" at most.

cwm said on 14/Nov/11
I stood next to Ron Wood. I am a bona fide 5'8". I towered over him and he had boots on.

Jonas said on 2/Nov/11
wearing lifts again? looks 5'11.25 with colin firth
Click Here

Assis Jr said on 15/Oct/11
Luciana G. told he is pretty short (she told about 5'7 1/2), has slim frame and wears lifts. A good 5'8 and a weak 5'9.

The greatest person alive in the world today said on 25/Jul/11
Based on the pic by Jim Short, Jagger looks 5'10"

Sam said on 29/Jun/11
Here Mick and John Lennon look about the same height, though it's not the best height comparison picture (in all other Google pics I saw they were both sitting or one was leaning):
Click Here

melillo said on 30/May/11
mick wears very huge lifted custom nike air max shoes and even with those he is only 5 foot ten at the most

mcfan said on 28/May/11
Wearing lifts:

Click Here

David said on 25/Apr/11
It seems that he hasn't lost height. Maybe 1 cm at most. He's in incredible shape for his age. 5'9.5 or 5'10 seems about right. Keith is 5'8.5 max. Ron and Charlie are both 5'6-5'7, I guess. But really, it's hard to tell sometimes.

Loren said on 4/Feb/11
Just to clear something up after reading these post of him being short and 5'8 or under. Just met Mick and stood face to face with him for about 10 min and made sure I assess his height :) I'm 5'9 and some change in shoes and he was about an inch or more taller then me and was wearing normal (no lift) tennis shoes that might give a little more height. He's very skinny and lanky. He's no shorter than 5'10 or at the very very least 5'9 1/2 barefoot these days - If he did shrink he would have been 5'11 in his heyday. 5'8 or lower is def not true. I'm sure if you saw him on stage he'd look shorter but walking right behind him judging his height is a different story. Trust me guys he's min 5'9 1/2 but more 5'10.

me said on 21/Dec/10
@ Interested

There's no way Ron is 5.1. 5.1 is like dudley moore height.

Interested said on 1/Dec/10
I met Ron Woods at a gallery showing of his art work; there was great expectancy of his arrival and all of a sudden everyone started congregating in one spot. Curious to see what was there as no one was visible and I'm only 5'1, I pushed my way through and was TRULY ASTONISHED to see Ron Woods, our eyes on the same level; his might have been slightly lower, I was so shocked at his size, I couldn't believe that this was THE Ron Woods of the Stones, and he was as big around as a pencil. Every time I see the Stones in a performance I notice how they ALL seem to be around the same height; they're all way shorter than people believe.

jim short said on 30/Nov/10
Click Here

jim short said on 30/Nov/10
lookin 6-7 ins taller than martin scorsesse

Willem-NL said on 28/Jun/09
He is 173 cm tall, when he was younger. Now it

Brad said on 11/Jun/09
Not a chance. Go to a Stones show and watch his posture between songs, it is military and he's as listed.

Denni said on 10/Jun/09
he is smaller then 510 for sure

adam said on 9/Jun/09
mick had a wax figure at madame tussauds in nyc, i know these arent reliable, but he was tiny like 5'7"

Mr T-Cakes said on 23/May/09
There is a scene in Godard's One Plus One where he is shuffling about the studio barefoot, and he did look About 5ft8-9. And that was at his peak. He was also a lot shorter than James Fox in Performance, and walked about without shoes in that a lot.These days he probably wears lifts to compensate for the height age has taken from him.

glenn said on 16/May/09
like all 5-10 celebs.they can look 5-11 or more with perfect posture and or footwear,or 5-8.5 to 5-9 with bad posture or illusion.

GUK said on 15/May/09
" don't buy that article with Radcliffe. Jagger used to be a half-inch taller than Bowie, but I think Bowie is slightly taller than him now. Even lower in the article it states that everyone over 17 nowadays is 6'2. Mick has shrunk for sure. Not a surprise...it doesn't look like he eats much, does it?"

Radcliffw is joking when he says everyone is 6ft 2, it's true though most young people in England are around 6ft these days. Radcliffe is about average height i.e. 5ft 9 ish maybe 5ft 10. So probably jagger is around that height and then stood on his tip toes. Like I said before Jagger's height confuses me, he can look 5ft 9 or almost 6ft,he is very skinny though, so maybe the tip toe trick is correct. I can't buy him being less than 5t 9 all the same

Brad said on 15/May/09
He's as listed. He has posture better than Cruise/Pitt/Stallone. He sings hunched over bending which gives the impression he is shorter.

CalifRags said on 14/May/09
Saw The Stones in concert years ago - Mick looked tiny. I guessed him to be no more than 5'6", maybe 5'7". Very slight of build, yet muscular, but not at all stocky. His incredible ability to dance around so "lightly" I attributed in large part to his slight build.

guyfrommars said on 10/May/09
In one of the books about The Rolling Stones Mick is described as 5ft10 while all other members of the band as 5ft8.

rara said on 3/May/09
l'wren scott is 6ft 4 actually!! hes basically never dated anyone under 5ft 10.. he was pretty much obsessed with super-models!

mcfan said on 20/Apr/09
I don't buy that article with Radcliffe. Jagger used to be a half-inch taller than Bowie, but I think Bowie is slightly taller than him now. Even lower in the article it states that everyone over 17 nowadays is 6'2. Mick has shrunk for sure. Not a surprise...it doesn't look like he eats much, does it?

anonymous said on 16/Apr/09
Check out this article featuring English radio DJ Mark Radcliffe. Scroll down to the Mick Jagger section. Radcliffe refers to Mick and the rest of the Stones as being "tiny" and also mentions that Mick tiptoes in the pic - "a trick he perfected years ago".
Mick will only reach 5'10" in lifts. All celebs seem to add the magic 2" to their height.

Click Here

iknow said on 31/Mar/09
ok...had front row at Rod's concert and he is at least 5'10" and possible 6'0". Was next to Mick Jagger getting into his limo in '95 at Vanity Fair party and his head barely was above the door. No way he is taller than 5'8" and is probably less. This 5'10" business is probably a showbiz stretch of the truth. But who cares...both Rod and Mick are talented individuals who put on a great show.

glenn said on 11/Mar/09
mcfan-he is one of the weirdest cases.i thought he was 5-8 when i was younger.and i thought his frame and lifts made him taller.i was stupid.plus,tabloids and newspapers put him at 5-8.but they put rod stewart at 5-7.when rod is 5-10,5-11.

mcfan said on 10/Mar/09
Glenn, I agree. You can see him side by side with the same people and mysteriously grow two inches. I really only think he is 5'9 now at the most, but will jump to 5'11 -- obvious lifts. 5'10 or maybe a hair over was right for his peak height. He was always listed as 5'10 when the Stones came out. Richards was listed as 5'10 (most of the time) and some 5'9 during the 60s. My best guess is that Jagger remained 5'10, but only recently (last 10 years or so?) started to shrink from what I can tell.

Brad said on 10/Mar/09
Looks shorter doing the Jagger strut onstage. Check him out walking around introducing the band etc....he can easily look 5' 11' with that posture. Anything below 5' 10" is ridiculous.

glenn said on 9/Mar/09
he can definitely look 5-11 or more.in flat shoe too.its bizzare with him.then can look 5-9.

mcfan said on 9/Mar/09
I still say he wears lifts. He can look 5'8.5 then look 5'11. He's probably shrunk so much because he doesn't eat and used to smoke like a fiend.

mcfan said on 7/Mar/09
Click Here

glenn said on 7/Mar/09
brad is correct.giving illusions taller and smaller.as all 5-10 men do.

Brad said on 6/Mar/09
He's lost nothing, he's still 5' 10".

kiff said on 5/Mar/09
mcfan - i agree he must have shrunk about 2 inches since 60-70s. However, if a 60+ yo guy with an ultra-ripped physique of a 20yo athlete and a full head of hair looks horrible then..well maybe.. why not post a pic of yourself without a shirt?

mcfan said on 10/Feb/09
I think Mick is 5'8.5 now. I do think he was 5'10 during his peak, but has shrunk quite a bit. Not surprising...he looks horrible as does Keith.

redhead said on 26/Jan/09
I met The Rolling Stones in the 80s. They are all fairly small. I am 5'10", Mick appears to be about 5'8", Keith is shorter by far - around 5'6", Charlie, Bill and Ronnie about 5'5" - VERY SMALL!!! I felt like I towered over all of them!

Spence said on 6/Dec/08
His girlfriend looks a solid 190cm. His 5ft10 does not look so beside her. His more like a solid 175ish old men nowadays..

mcfan said on 24/Nov/08
Check this out with McCartney next to Jagger:

Click Here

I think it's obvious Jagger wears lifts. Even back then he would look 5'11, but now he can barely look 5'9.

Taylor said on 29/Oct/08
Those shoes he's wearing are just the Air Max 1... gives about 1.4 inches

Elle said on 28/Oct/08
Hi guys, I'm back almost a year later, (last comment in Dec. 07) to say that I've read all your comments, and you can analyze and dissect photos up the kazoo, and some of you have spent a moment or two in his presence, but I spent an evening at his townhouse (amid many other celebs). We talked many times, he WAS NOT SLOUCHING in the least, he had Capezio jazz dance flats on, I did not find him sexy in the least, and most importantly, I had plenty of time (got there at 10 pm and left at 5 am) to size him up!! He was 5 ft. 8.5 inches. You have it from the source. P.S. He had a terrible sound system and he kept playing the same David Bowie album over and over until I asked him to change it.

Anonymous said on 18/Oct/08
Here he is wearing the worst-looking lifted shoes I've ever seen.

Click Here

Click Here

Attila the pure said on 14/Oct/08
Unlike some of you guys who seem to meet Mick Jagger with great regularity I have only come face to face with him once and I would find it difficult to estimate his height because the first thing that struck me was his rather strange way of walking, the next was how small of build he was. One thing is certain I am roughly 6`1" and his image was no where near my height irrespective of his shoe wear and taking into account his hair "do" which must add 2" to his height. I am told that the accurate way to judge height is to weigh up where someones eye line is in relationship to your own and this being the case I would guestimate his height at around 5`6"/5`8"

MHouillon said on 8/Oct/08
Yeah. Time for ROb to change him to a more realistic 5'9. 5'10 PEAK-Height. 5'9 actual height.

bob said on 12/Sep/08
I passed him in a theatre. He was no more than 5'9 max.

harlan said on 9/Sep/08
I passed Mick in a street in London about 1972 and he is definitly shorter than 5'10". More like 5'7" !

mcfan said on 4/Sep/08
He looks taller than Bowie by a half-inch. Bowie was 5'9.5. Jagger looks like he's shrunk over the years, but then he'll wear large shoes and look tall.

D said on 3/Sep/08
He looks about as tall as David Bowie. Click Here

MickJagFan said on 27/Jul/08
He wears big elevated shoes. He always stretches his legs. He is no more than 5'9in 176cm Click Here

Daniel said on 9/Jul/08
If Jagger was less than 1.80m in the 60s, then average height for English males at the time should have been 1.70 tops, for he looked rather tall most of the time. And I mean in normal shoes.

Lmeister said on 3/Jul/08
Come on, Mick doesn't have the best posture and I do think that Janice Dickinson wears rather high heels all the time. Mick might be 1/2 inches shorter than her, but definitely not 5ft8. At least wasn't in his youth. Nowadays maybe around 5ft8.5.

Anonymous said on 2/Jul/08
I am really doubting this 5'10" listing... Jane Dickinson (5'10") has said, "...he only came up to my shoulders if we were standing."

soup said on 1/Jul/08
He is 5'10'' in the morning and 5'9'' at night.

Why my posts sometimes aren't saved? I posted only once yesterday right here.

:(

Soup said on 30/Jun/08
Mick in not taller than 5'10'', maybe less. He looks short sometimes and the same height as David Bowie.

miles smiles said on 28/Jun/08
Glenn, have you peeped his sneakers in Shine A Light? Strange, hi-tech looking things, with a definite boost. As I've stated before, Jagger's up there with DMX as a true height Zelig. What do you think?

zapspace said on 11/Jun/08
Mick's always been height sensitive ... Wouldn't be surprised if he often wore special shoes.

glenn said on 5/Jun/08
how does he wear enormous lifts in low cut,flat sneakers?only latel ive noticed him wearing thick sneakers.he is 5-10.

Daniel said on 4/Jun/08
I don't know about his height at present times, but what I'm almost sure is that if Jagger wasn't at least 5'11'' in the 60's, then most of the other rock musicians from his era, including his bandmates of course, were a bunch of short dudes, because he was clearly at least 2 inches taller than the average.

Anonymous said on 30/May/08
I don't know about Mick. It's so hard to tell because he's clearly careful about his height. My dad saw the Stones live in the seventies and said that they were all a bunch of shrimps. But then my dad is obsessive about height so you can't really trust what he says. In the Shine a Light movie Mick does a duet with Christina Aguilera who is only about 5-1 or 5-2. She is wearing four inch heels in the clip, and Mick is just a few inches taller than her. Which would put him in at 5-9 or so. However, that's only if he's not wearing lifts in his shoes.

Another testimony to his height comes from a girl I work with. She ran into him at a resort about ten years ago and she said he was very small. She's about 5-4 herself and said he was just a few inches taller than her.

I'd say Mick is probably about 5-7.

John said on 25/May/08
he wears enormous lifts, maybe 2 inches and 1/2 on some concerts. Looks like he is 5-9 and tops 6-0 on his lifts.

JanisJoplin said on 19/May/08
Well he certainly is a tall man no matter if he is between 5'9-5'11. I think that shorter skinnier guys like Mick and Prince like to date taller women for some weird reason...I mean most of the women that Mick has dated have been taller then he is...if indeed he is 5'9 or shorter...

glenn said on 16/May/08
that makes total sense actually guk.the man can look tall or short.

GUK said on 16/May/08
Jagger can look a strong 5ft 11 then barely 5ft 9. I think this is down to how skinny he is, 28 inch waiste is tiny. My estimate is 5ft 9.5 barefoot, up to nearly 6ft in dodgy shoes

stones fan said on 26/Apr/08
a friend was in a nyc bar one night back in the 70's and ran smack in to keith and saw mick and bianca going out a door and he was in her estimation 5 ft 8.

milies smiles said on 23/Apr/08
Yes, that pic is truly baffling. He's towering over Dicaprio! I just saw Shine A Light, and he looks like a lean and stretched-out 5-10 throughout, especially next to Bill Clinton. However, he's wearing these funny springy and generously-heeled designer running shoes throughout the show. A real hard dude to pinpoint, as we all know.

Curious said on 16/Apr/08
I'm reading Mick Jaggar Unauthorized, and the author said Mick's 5'9" and barely 130 pounds.

glenn said on 15/Apr/08
thats an amazing pic.but i think leo is leaning in.ron wood is another chameleon.i laughed when i read in a tour book he was 5-10.5.but he is! saw him 2 weeks look that in converse and look barely 5-9 the next day same footwear.crazy posture fluctuations mick and ron have.charlie always looks 5-8.keith shrunk from 5-9 to 5-8ish.sometimes looking 5-10 in the 90s.actually alot of times.

glenn said on 15/Apr/08
you forgot to mention rob,they said he was 4 inches shorter than his 6-2 girlfriend.thats accurate.unless of course you read a different article.

Tom said on 14/Apr/08
Click Here Look here mick is taller than dicaprio

glenn said on 27/Mar/08
jagger is 5-10.looking 5-8 with bad posture and 6ft with great posture.an enigma.

Maxi said on 26/Mar/08
lol! Jagger got to be kidding to date a 6'4" girl who is almost a foot (-4 inches) taller than him.

Anshelm said on 15/Mar/08
I'm guessing the angle is on Scott's favor Click Here

Anonymous said on 29/Jan/08
Paul McCartney&Mick Jagger came to the meeting place of Reunion Live of Led Zeppelin of December for admiration.
McCartney was about 1 inch taller than Jagger at time when two people lined up.
The height of McCartney becomes 5 feet 11 inches if the height of ,Jagger is 5 feet 10 inches.
On the contrary, the height of ,Jagger becomes 5 feet 9 inches if the height of ,McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches.
McCartney wore flat shoes.
Jagger has many rumors related to shoes, but I do not understand it.

glenn said on 19/Jan/08
20 years is what i meant.

glenn said on 18/Jan/08
like you said.unreliable.multiple encounters for 20 has him at 5-10 for.cause he could look 5-11,6ft.and 5-9.depending on posture and footwear.

thom said on 17/Jan/08
...maybe witnesses ARE always unreliable -- I stood behind Mick as he did a sound check at a 1972 Seattle concert and he was like a jockey, stunningly small. His head was a little above my shoulders and I'm 5'10". Maybe he was in a hole or a lower stair, but it's surprising to hear people credit him with anything above 5'6"...

My hunch is that he's about the same size as Dylan but remember, as Maria sang, "It ain't the meat but the motion."

Roger Field said on 2/Jan/08
I met Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones in Munich in 1976 and showed Mick and the others the prototype of my Foldaxe folding electric guitar invention which I designed for Chet Atkins (in Chet's book "Me and My Guitars" on the internet). Mick played it a bit, bent it over his knee and said "Good night!" (as an exclamation). I have photos of him with it. They were all very nice. Mick is the same height as me, about 5'9," or a tiny bit taller. Roger Field

glenn said on 30/Dec/07
great work on the shoes.the black ones look close to what he wears.but he also looks tall in black adidas too.

Phibes said on 29/Dec/07
It's not so much about the photos for me as they seldom show the full body (head to toe) of a person, the type of footwear, surface etc ,..but more about the countless videos, movies, documentaries of the Stones from the 60s, 70s, ..I've seen over the years show clearly that Jagger in flat shoes has always looked an inch taller than Richards (officially 5'9")- if not wearing his cowboy boots, or Wood - who's always appeared about the same height as Richards (from 70s till now) so I doubt Wood was ever 5'10.5... Watch She's So Cold or Shattered from the 70s when they were still young or countless other Stones viedos on youtube.

As for Jagger's retractable spine:), I don't think he has any, you can buy shoes that look low cut and will give you 2.5 - 3 inches, check this out:

Click Here
Click Here

I hope this helps solve the mystery about Jagger's 6ft in low cut shoes and his everchanging height esp. in recent years.
He indeed could have lost around 2 inches since the 80s, after all he'll be 65 next year. If you watch the beginning of the Stones Rio concert in 2006 (Biggest Bang DVD)just before the start of the show, when the Stones walk across the bridge from their hotel to the stage on the beach, Jagger (who's wearing his thick concert trainers) and Watts are walking next to each other and appear almost the same height, Jagger being only very slightly taller than Watts who was 5'8" when he was young. Jagger still looks a tad taller than Richards&Wood but they both also must have shrunk at least 2in in the last 20years.

So all in all, it is possible that Jagger - withouth any tricks, is indeed around 5'8" nowadays. And with the 'proper' footwear he can easily appear 5'11"-6ft max.

Anonymous said on 15/Dec/07
Jagger was at least 5'10", maybe even 5'10.5" in his prime. Nowadays, he's probably closer to 5'9". In the '70s he could have appeared much taller because he wore humungous heels onstage.

glenn said on 22/Nov/07
he can in photos.and in my friends pics with him.i saw a pic that a women journalist had with him and she towered him.and i saw photogs getting the whole stones in a photo with them and their knees were bent(the photogs knees) and they made fun of their heights afterwards.they or he can look short.

Viper said on 22/Nov/07
I find it crazy that Jagger can look as short as 5-8.

glenn said on 22/Nov/07
who is this fool tel? ron wood is 5-10.5 in his prime,5-9 now with bad posture.jagger can look 5-8 to 6ft,no doubt.he is 5-10 in reality.ive been meeting the stones for 20 years now and see mick 3,4 times a year.im the authority on the stones.

Anonymous said on 21/Nov/07
There is a pic on google image search of Wood and Jagger with Di Caprio, although Di Caprio hasn't got the greatest posture in the pic, Jagger looks the same height, maybe taller.

tel said on 29/Oct/07
Phibes says it's impossible that Mick Jagger is 5'8" or 5'9". Er, Elle saw him face to face over the course of a whole evening so I think she should know! Official biographies (and official photographs) always exaggerate the height of the celebrity in question, and it wouldn't surprise me if Jagger wore lifts in his footwear now and again, particularly when his girlfriend is 6'4" and towers over him even in flat shoes.

As maryport said, Jagger is lean to almost an extreme degree, and this together with his good posture (and perhaps shoe lifts) makes him look taller. Ronnie Wood is much closer to the heights of The Small Faces than he is to someone of 5'10" or 5'11". Wood has had a near-emaciated look for all of his adult life, and being so skinny always makes someone look taller.

All of the Rolling Stones are small in height and all have skinny legs, so they tend to look tallish in pictures or on stage. To draw a comparison, Roger Daltrey (5'6") has always been slim and would have looked around the 5'8"/5'9" mark on stage and in pics if Pete Townshend and John Entwistle had been of a similar height, rather than 6 foot. The folks to believe about Jagger's height are the ones who've seen him face to face, and the consensus seems to be around 5'8". Beware of misleading publicity pics!

Anthony said on 14/Oct/07
I really do think Mick has a retractable spine. I've seen Mick and the boys in concert twice and have one of them on tape, Mick looks he could be anywhere from 5'10 to 6'. 5'7-5'8 could be with astoudingly bad posture. Remember this guy beat out DiCaprio and was a head taller than Marty Scorsese at the premiere of "The Departed" a year ago.

miles smiles said on 9/Oct/07
Glenn, the Jagger mystery continues. An ex-girlfriend of mine used to be dragged to Stones concerts by her obsessed dad, and she got backstage a few times. She's 5-7. We're still in touch, and the other day I asked her how tall Jagger was, and she says she was exactly the same height as him (and she never wears heels. I also just came across a blog where several people quote sightings of 5-5(!) and 5-7 for Jagger. Obviously 5-5 is way off, but it does make me question his official height. Remember he only weighs a buck forty by his own admisssion, which is so skinny it gives the appearance of being lanky and lean.

Anthony said on 3/Oct/07
Plant was at least 6'1 when he was younger. Elvis was 6', and Mick Fleetwood was 6'7 in his youth. Only ones I can think of right now. Yeah, they're mostly in that range.

glenn said on 23/Sep/07
i noticed what you are saying too miles.long ago.some of my childhood heroes were my height too.edward van halen,steve harris.

miles smiles said on 23/Sep/07
He most definitely has a retractable spine...or else he knows some freaky height-enhancing voodoo (from his Voodoo Louge..heh heh.) Hey glenn, isn't it kinda weird that so many old skool rock stars are in the 5-9 to 5-11 range? From Jagger to Richards to Lennon to McCartney to Hendrix to Clapton to Bowie to Page to Arthur Lee...the list continues. I know it's about the average height range, but they rarely stray much outside that range. I suppose the Small Faces and Prince are on the extreme short end, but you rarely see a major rock star over 6-1 or so. Can't think of any at the moment.

glenn said on 18/Sep/07
mick has a retractable spine.

Viper said on 17/Sep/07
He must laugh at Sly's munsters.

glenn said on 17/Sep/07
of course he would wear lifts.thats not the mystery.its that i examine his black low cut sneakers all the time.how the hell does he go from 5-9 to 6ft in that kind of footwear? i see what your friend sees all the time.its astonishing.

miles smiles said on 17/Sep/07
So glenn, my record exec friend from l.a. has seen Jagger twice in the last couple of years (Mick's been seeing this Amazon hottie from the area), and he says once he appeared 5-9ish, and the other time 6 feet. Do you think Sir Mick would even bother wearing lifts? I mean, I know huge egos never really die, but would the guy who co-wrote Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers, and Exile On Main Street and shagged every hottie on the planet even care about a few extra inches?

glenn said on 25/Aug/07
they are fascinating.i wish i could morph in height like that.

miles smiles said on 25/Aug/07
I was going by this website's official listing for Kravitz. But yeah, Glenn, the two times I've seen Kravitz he did appear at least 5-9 (taking into account footwear.) There's a Jagger documentary from a few yaers back where he and Kravitz look about the same height. Jagger's an enimgma....up there almost with Depp and DMX.

glenn said on 25/Aug/07
lenny kravitz is a minimum of 5-9.and in public usually looks 5-10,5-11.

miles smiles said on 24/Aug/07
I'm glad you guys agree about Jagger the vertical Zelig. It's gotta be that weird spine-stretching voodoo thing that DMX does too. I've seen a photo of Mick towering over 5-8 lenny Kravitz....and other times he looks about 5-8.

glenn said on 24/Aug/07
geez.serious anthony? he looked 5-8 next to my 6-1.5 friend.i always look at his shoes.usually black low cut sneakers.

Anthony said on 24/Aug/07
There's shots of Mick looking 6'1-6'2 with DiCaprio.

glenn said on 24/Aug/07
correct miles.the guy might be the king of heights cause ive seen him look from 5-8 to 6ft,except that he wears low cut normal shoes unlike the stallones,pitts and depps of the world.which makes him more of an enigma!

miles smiles said on 23/Aug/07
Jagger is almost like the DMX of the classic rock world. There are pictures where he looks 6-0 standing next to other celebs, and sometimes he appears 5-9, as Glenn points out. Obviously he's quite the peacock, so lifts seem a definite possibility. But would he even bother? I mean, he's friggin' Mick Jagger...and he's 64.

glenn said on 11/Aug/07
jagger looks taller over the years.i always thought he was 5-8 due to his posture.a girl once told me she read 5-9.5 for jagger.a 1994 tour book has him at 5-10.and ronnie at 5-10.5.and mick can look taller than wood.hence the 6ft illusion.but wood can look 5-9 as well.

CarbonM5 said on 10/Aug/07
We have worked for Mick Jagger in the past. He looked 5-11 close-up.

glenn said on 9/Aug/07
he does look 6ft on stage in black skippies or sneakers.no room for too much lifts.he can look 5-11 in street.usually 5-9.5 to 5-10 appearence.very tricky guy to figure out.looked 5-8 next to my 6-1.5 friend in a photo,1994.

tubbs said on 9/Aug/07
Saw Mick leaving his hotel in Helsinki last week, looked about 5'11...honestly, also saw Charlie at the same time, he looked around 5'8". What really surprised me was that Mick looked 6' during the concert later that evening. Have you ever seen Jagger at 6' Glenn?

glenn said on 8/Aug/07
she is 6-3 or 6-4.

jacky said on 7/Aug/07
how tall l'wren scott. she obviously towers over him by miles.

maryport said on 28/Jun/07
My husband and I came almost side by side with Mick Jagger at an Oporto museum in August 2006 and I can garantee that he is a little shorter than my husband that is 1 m 75 cm tall. He is extraordinary skinny, only bones, muscles and skin! This year, at Lisbon concert, I used with magnifiyng lenses and I am sure he used special shoes on stage. It looked like he had springs under his feet and they look to have an extra height not only high heels. I would like to have a pair like that for my fitness sessions. And one more thing all my aquagym teachers are rather short, but when I look up from the pool down, they look rather tall, is the same with musicians on stage