This photo is in a Guardian article about an auction of Beatles memorabilia and autographs. I'm struck by how much smaller Ringo's head is compared to George's and John's. They are equidistant from the camera, so it's a true difference. A quick Google suggests that Ringo was chronically ill as a child and may have been about 4" shorter than the other two, so perhaps it's just a reflection of overall body habitus. Totally unimportant; just something I've never noticed before.
Photo credit: PA
It does look as though George and John are leaning slightly towards the camera, however it still is a real difference. John's head looks very unusually long though, when you compare it to Paul's.
ReplyDeleteYou're right in saying it's unimportant, but I am strangely fascinated by the picture.
Me too - that's why I blogged it. Now we'll see if there are any Beatle-philes out there who might dig up some other reference to this.
ReplyDeleteNote that the two Beatles with the smallest heads are the ones who are still alive. Coincidence? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you make of this one..?
ReplyDeletehttp://tsutpen.blogspot.com/2009/11/mop-tops-in-action-23.html
Hard to tell with that photo. Some suggestion of a small head here -
ReplyDeletehttp://word-of-mouth-advertising.com/marketing/look-within/images/beatles.jpg
So you never noticed his large proboscis???
ReplyDeleteNature was generous in other areas.
You know what is said about the size of a man's nose/feet.