Here's the 24-year-old in London back in 1964 (left) -- and 46 years later, the 70-year-old version at a concert in NYC on Wednesday (right).
Let it be.
Ringo Starr: Good Genes or Good Docs?
Beauty
7/11/2010 4:00 AM PDT BY Johnny Lopez
36 COMMENTS
31.
His ego is bigger then his nose, I realy liked him in the 60's but the more I see him now, I think how could of I liked such a BIG HEAD.
0
0
32.
Re: earlier comments,
Paul humble? Please, Paul McCartney is a snakecharmer who brought his wife to the US to die so he wouldn't have to pay death tax in the UK. Musically talented or no, he's a greedy sob who knows how to schmooze people when he wants to.
0
0
34.
I think it's just good genes. There really aren't any signs of cosmetic surgery. It does kind of look like he's had something done with his lower lids but I looked at some other pictures of him and I think his eyelids just look saggy when he smiles because the ones where he isn't smiling, he doesn't have that problem. :P
0
0
35.
I can't believe how many Haters have commented. Yeesh ! And to the ones who think the young Paul or George were not attractive: I am sorry to hear of your failing eyesight!
0
0
36.
Ringo was a remarkably good-looking guy. I think it's due to natural beauty. (genes) I doubt anybody would want to get the looks due to plastic surgery. (docs) The picture the left is incrdiby beautiful. I love the long shiny brown hair, the pretty blue eyes and the absolutly adorable face. He even looks great with a big nose. The picture on the right is good too, especialy for a 70 year old. Ringo looks about 30 years younger. <3
0
0
