|
Post by Red Lion on Aug 21, 2006 15:32:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tkp66 on Aug 21, 2006 16:21:58 GMT -5
Goes kind of far back.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 21, 2006 18:04:17 GMT -5
Yeah see.. he'd have the little bit around the edges by now. When Bill took a bow when I saw him in Boston, he was showing the beginnings of a bald spot. (on the back/crown area)
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 21, 2006 18:51:52 GMT -5
There's also the bathroom scene in Help where the hand dryer goes berzerk & it's blowin' his hair back as he's tryin' to get up off the floor. Remember?
I think I remember a "paul may wear a wig" discussion after those stills were posted somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Aug 21, 2006 19:10:59 GMT -5
Where is the thread with the video of the Beatles performing in France when his wig slips?
From that clip it looks like he was bald up to the top of his head, at least.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Aug 21, 2006 20:50:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 21, 2006 20:56:05 GMT -5
Yeah see.. he'd have the little bit around the edges by now. (on the back/crown area) Yeah and he'd probably have had some implants like Connery.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 21, 2006 21:34:28 GMT -5
Well I'm saying if Paul's hair was like this in 1965: By now he would no doubt only have hair around the edges, almost fully bald, see what I mean? Bill on the other hand appears to have his own hair, but is finally at this late date showing the beginnings of a bald spot in the place where it tends to disappear first.
|
|
|
Post by lili on Aug 22, 2006 11:06:35 GMT -5
That's a very valid point, Jo. Paul's dad Jim was mostly bald. However, they say that the bald gene runs on the mother's side of the family. Since his mom died so young, I'd guess that we'd have to try to find photos of male relatives on her side.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 22, 2006 19:20:56 GMT -5
The Beatles haircut was probably good at hiding a receding hairline for awhile. I think it's safe to say he wasn't wearing a rug, or he wouldn't have been shaking his head like that.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 23, 2006 8:17:01 GMT -5
The Beatles haircut was probably good at hiding a receding hairline for awhile. I think it's safe to say he wasn't wearing a rug, or he wouldn't have been shaking his head like that. Yes, a receding hairline is a lot more believable. The question remains what was meant by "You were in a car crash and you lost your hair." Unless by '66 he was wearing a hair piece.
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Aug 25, 2006 21:16:00 GMT -5
Yes, the Beatle cut would have almost been like a "comb forward", if he was balding from the frontal hairline first. He would have grown his "crown" area longer and comb it down. When he threw his head back, then you could see the balding frontal area.
They would have had hairpieces in those days, but there were no weaves, no plants, no transplants that could have covered the problem better. A full toupe would have been too obviously fake looking. The "comb forward" would make sense.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 25, 2006 22:27:56 GMT -5
Huh, sure would be funny if the reason for the mop top look was just to have a hairstyle that covered up a receding hairline.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 26, 2006 0:14:38 GMT -5
Huh, sure would be funny if the reason for the mop top look was just to have a hairstyle that covered up a receding hairline. An idea not without precedent.
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Aug 27, 2006 21:59:03 GMT -5
And so the others had to have similar mop tops, although by "HELP", John had the classic type of combover, that went from side to side....Not saying that he was covering up baldness, but there was a fad back then for guys to have long bangs swept over their foreheads, like John's...I notice that young guys are copying similar styles that were worn in the 70's. I have to laugh because they are looking like what the teens wore when I was in Jr. High....
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on May 4, 2007 22:01:21 GMT -5
Well I'm saying if Paul's hair was like this in 1965: By now he would no doubt only have hair around the edges, almost fully bald, see what I mean? Bill on the other hand appears to have his own hair, but is finally at this late date showing the beginnings of a bald spot in the place where it tends to disappear first. This video shows that JPM was bald at least up to the top of his head and then some. He was Richard Lester-level bald(ing). And yet, this is in no Beatles or Beatles-related history or memoir printed anywhere. What does this astonishing fact tell us? Not even a hint that Paul McCartney may have been losing his hair or trying to conceal the hair loss. When I'm 1984.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on May 6, 2007 14:47:39 GMT -5
Since Paul really took after his dad Jim, it would make sense that he would've had the same bald pattern as him.
|
|