#mcbeardymullet source busts

[mcbeardymullet]

The History of Paul McCartney's ID Bracelet (part i: the beginning)

(part ii) (part iii) (part iv) (part v: correction)

(25 June 1963 © Peter Hall)

(hello, i come from yonder [beatlestwt] where i sometimes do silly threads deep diving into nonsensical things. i thought it might be worth pulling it over to tumblr, despite tumblr giving me flashbacks to being 15 years old and witnessing dashcon in real time. anywho, this was formatted for a twitter thread so the paragraphs will be a bit funky, but i also added a bit more detail in places - hope you enjoy!)

paul's ID bracelet holds somewhat a mythical status - a myriad of unanswered questions ranging from who gave it to him? what does it say?? does he wear it during the anthology doc?? well settle in and buckle up, we're gonna be looking at a lot of photos to try and solve the case

first and foremost, a note on methodology: i primarily used beatleschronology dot ru to go day by day thru the 60s to trace The Bracelet, then i used the paul mccartney project, getty images, & the like after. it ain’t perfect but it’s something.

we are gonna go on a chronological journey and try and answer key questions along the way. good? good! let's start at the beginning - cast your mind back to the early 1960s…

the first question to answer: is this the first image of paul wearing the bracelet? and better yet, when was it taken?? well, unsurprisingly, it's complicated. (photo by mike mccartney lest he banish me to the pits of that dodgy firm pinterest)

this photo (taken by mike mccartney) is sometimes dated as december 1960, largely due to a caption in mike's 1982 book 'thank u very much', which says the following:

the ‘four months’ in hamburg therefore places it in dec '60. now i don't want to call mike a liar, but let's look at other pictures taken of paul around that time (first pic astrid, second mike mike mike)

im sorry to say but there is no way that image is from 1960 - man has a moptop for christs sake!! thats gotta put it post '61 at the very least. looking at other mike photos in 1962, the aesthetics are bit more similar

however, having now extensively looked at paul's hair from this period, i propose that the bracelet image *might* have occurred on his 21st while he is getting ready for his shindig. There’s a certain full moptopness to it that is moreso ‘63 coded imho.

ultimately, i don't think there's any compelling evidence that the image occurs wildly before paul's 21st on 18th june '63. so, onwards to the birthday, aka when The Bracelet Arrives on the Scene (photo by mike mccartney!!!!!)

the bracelet itself is a classic ID bracelet (which was the style at the time). we can’t see the inside inscription but we can see the outside says paul. the colour flip flops from gold and silver depending on the photo so we’ll just say it was ~metal~ (photo from c. jun '63)

id bracelets were advertised in teen mags like Rave in ‘65. similarly, ireland's saturday night paper noted ID bracelet popularity among celeb men in dec '64

from the 18th jun '63 onwards, the bracelet doesnt leave paul's left wrist (apart from in november, maybe due to touring reasons). so, this suggests it was a gift from *someone* for Paul's 21st. but whoooooo?

four main camps have emerged in The Bracelet Theory: 1. it was a gift from brian epstein 2. it was a gift from jane asher 3. it was a gift from john lennon 4. it was a gift from mike/jim/some other family member

the gift from eppy idea stems from the fact that ringo is also pictured with an ID bracelet throughout the ‘60s. some have speculated that maybe eppy gave all the beatles a bracelet, but john and george simply didnae wear theirs (ungrateful gits)

however this is unlikely/untrue due to the simple fact ringo stated that his bracelet was a gift from his mumma for *his* 21st birthday (7:49):

so, lets turn our speculative eyes to jane asher as the gift giver - it appears at paul's 21st birthday, a few months after they start dating, and he is then seen wearing it consistently thereafter. in dec '63, the daily record published this:

case closed?? well, one could argue it’s not a direct quote from jane so there is some wiggle room but…it’s quite compelling evidence tbh. it doesn’t mean we can completely rule out Other Gift Givers, but there isn’t any great evidence to counter it’s *not* from jane

(for those yelling at the screen about its appearance in later decades hold yer horses we’ll get there!!!)

paul wears the bracelet at least once a month for every month in 1964 - through tours, photoshoots, and filming a hard days night it doesn’t slip off that dainty left wrist. from jun ‘63 - dec ‘64, that Bracelet is his no 1 left wrist support (apart from a blip in nov ‘63)

post ‘64? well babs, you’ll have to go to pt ii for that

[mcbeardymullet]

🧵in this thread i will explore The Historiography of the 6th of July 1957, aka when John Lennon and Paul McCartney met (part i)

(part ii) (part iii)

(note: this has been formatted for twt)

As the legend goes, on the 6th of July 1957, a young John Lennon performed at a church fete in Woolton, watched by a younger Paul McCartney. Thereafter, younger Paul showed off to young John and the rest was history…

Usually in these source busting threads i have something to, y’know, investigate but for this special edition we are just going to traverse the history books of see how this momentous meeting has been reported on, point out bits of interest, glaze over repetitions etc.

I’ve examined the usual books noted as the ‘canon’ of Beatles history texts, as well as whatever other books I have copies of and found interesting. I’ve focused on monographs rather than articles & interviews. That’s it. That’s the methodology. 

I’ve included page numbers where possible but some of my collection are e-books and hence nae page numbers

So let’s kick off with the John Lennon’s ‘In His Own Write’ (1964, p. 11)

Short n sweet from ar Paul. Paul labels himself a ‘fat schoolboy’ (be kind) & says John was drunk. He also states ‘we were twelve’, but i think this is paul trying to do a funny and highlight they were but wee ‘uns rather than literal twelve year olds. also sideboards = sideburns 

next up, Billy Shepherd’s ‘The True Story of the Beatles’ (1964, pp. 11-12)

Oh, Billy. June 15th 1955? You’re a month and two years out of date! We’ll blame Paul for the whole ‘we were 12’ thing. Other than that, we have Ivan being the key person to bring Paul to the fete (for music reasons) and introducing him to John. 

oh i’m sure you’ve been waiting for this one: Hunter Davies, ‘The Beatles: The Authorized Biography’ (1969, p. 23, pp. 35-36) 

June 15th, 1956? I don’t think! Beyond that faux pas, Davies’s rendition of events became the blueprint for beatle books and introduced some key beats of the story: (1) John dressed full teddy boy and Mimi disapproved (2) John got ‘roaring drunk’ 

(3) Ivan took Paul to the fete [paul thought there would be girls there] (4) Paul wore a white sports coat and drainies (5) They met in the Church Hall (6) Paul showed off his skills (7) John’s beery breath (7) Shotton not impressed (8) Paul looked like Elvis

roll on everyone's favourite biased “expert”, Philip Norman’s ‘Shout!’ (1981, pp. 42-44)

FINALLY! THE CORRECT DATE! (probs cheers to lewisohn for that, who was a researcher for shout!). Other than that, the main beats are similar to Davies’s rendition, but with some fleshed out details. 

(1) Mimi visited the Fete unaware John was performing and was shocked to see him there (2) Shotton recalls the introductions were stiff (oo-er) and Paul was cocky (oh i say) 

a couple of years later, Peter Shotton described the meeting in ‘John Lennon: In My Life’  (1983, p. 53-54)

Shotton reiterates a standoffishness but, in contrast to his view in ‘69, says he was impressed by Paul's 'cool reserve'. He also states Paul had his own guitar (wrong) and that John was immediately impressed by Paul.

next up we have the paul crab truthers Peter Brown & Steven Gaine’s ‘The Love You Make…’ (1983, pp. 21 - 22)

Brown & Gaines mainly focus on Paul. tho the initial date of the fete is correct, B&G then state Paul was 14. Doh. They iterate Paul went to pick up the ladies, segue into his first sexual escapades, and then say the fete was in 1956. Silly mistakes, boys.

We then get the familiar details of Paul wearing a white sports coat and black drainies, borrowing a guitar to show off, and John’s beery breath. This time, John is ‘begrudgingly impressed’.

onto the completely agreeable and non-controversial Albert Goldman ‘The Lives of John Lennon’ (1988, pp. 67-68)

Goldman largely keeps to the status quo of the story/regurgitates Davies’s work. He stresses Mimi’s disapproval of John’s garb, and highlights Paul’s outfit of the white sports jacket with SPARKLES and TOIGHT black drainies. Then we have John’s beery beery breath once again.

going off the beaten path of The Canon, we have Geoffrey Giuliano’s ‘The Lost Beatles Interviews’ (1994, pp.289-292)

This is a printed version of a 1986 interview between Julia Baird, John’s sister, and ar Paul. Paul admits to being terrible with dates (we know) but otherwise is consistent with his earlier recollections - the songs, minor beery breath, sports coat etc. The most interesting tidbit comes from Julia who states John’s family (sans Mimi) went to the fete to see John perform.

We also get a lovely long bit about how suave and Buddy-holly like John looked, swooooon.

next up Ray Coleman’s ‘Lennon: The Definitive Biography’ (1995, pp.157-160) 

The outliers In this version include john buying beers from the office and getting lightly inebriated for the fete. Though initially shocked, Mimi says she was *happy* to see John perform, contrasting with John’s well documented recollection.

(cont. here)

[mcbeardymullet]

in this thread i will finally answer the question: Did Paul Treat Crabs with Sheep Dip?

(hello, i come from yonder [beatlestwt] where i sometimes do silly threads deep diving into nonsensical things. i thought it might be worth pulling it over to tumblr spread the tomfoolery. this was formatted for a twitter thread so the paragraphs will be a bit funky - hope you enjoy!) as the story goes, somewhen in the 1960s dear Paul contracted a STD/crabs/pubic lice, and while he was up at his remote Scottish farm he remedied it by using sheep dip aka a insecticide/fungicide solution for sheep…but where did this story start? it first appears in Peter Brown & Steven Gaines ‘The Love You Make: An Insider’s Story of the Beatles’ (1983, p. 210) Brown, PA for the Beatles/Epstein, relays the story from Alistair Taylor, Epstein’s PA/'Mr Fixit'

and so the initial story is established as: Paul gets crabs → Asks Taylor to go to the pharmacy for meds → Pharmacist provides “sheep dip” 20 odd years later, Taylor accounts the story in his own book, ‘With the Beatles’ (2003 edition, p. 132)

(side note - Taylor published ‘A Secret History’ in November 2001. ‘With the Beatles’ is a revised version of this book. sadly, i haven’t been able to find a copy of it for me research so can’t confirm if the anecdote appeared in 2001…) Taylor's version (ha) of his anecdote: Paul gets an STD → Asks Taylor to get some meds → Taylor enlists the help of solicitor Bob Graham → pills arrive labelled ‘Sheep Dip’ ...and so we have our first main quandary: was it literal sheep dip or “sheep dip”? In 2024 Brown & Gaines released ‘All You Need is Love: The Beatles in Their Own Words’, which consisted of the transcripts & interviews used for their book in 1983. Taylor’s transcript is presented as follows:

the transcript is somewhat unclear if it's real sheep dip or not. Taylor’s comment of “it was lovely” seems odd if referencing actual sheep dip, but one can kinda see how Brown & Gaines presented the story as they did however, in 2024 Brown & Gaines also gave an interview with the Hollywood Report where they said the following:

so the 3rd iteration of the story is : Paul was at the farm with Linda (not Jane) → Paul sent ‘an assistant’ to get meds → the only thing they had was literal sheep dip… (bear in mind Brown was 87ish and Gaines 76ish in 2024, and age can do numbers on ya memory) overall, i think we can dismiss Brown/Gaines 'versions' for the main reason of not being present at the anecdote to begin with (and doing a piss poor job of being consistent with details) however, Taylor has some issues between his 2003 published story, and the one told in the c.1980 transcript: 1. overall unclear whether its literal sheep dip or not 2. liquid vs. pills discrepancy so, can we trust this source? short answer: not really. long answer… the anecdote comes from one source - the only other people who can verify it are Paul, Bob, and an unnamed pharmacist. It is not a ‘trustworthy’ source on a surface level. thus are the usual pitfalls of biographical sources - they often come from one person & one person only Taylor’s published version is likely more ‘accurate’. he was present in the story, and published it on his own accord. he is consistent w/ his wider depictions of the farm in his books incl. ‘Yesterday: My Life...’ (1991 ed.) (although the STD story is omitted in this book) Brown/Gaines 2024 transcript of Taylor differs from the anecdote printed in 1983 - there is no mention of a pharmacist in the transcript, and no mention of Bob Graham in the 1983 book crucially, the transcript does not provide anything by way of *how* the story is told - Taylor’s ‘lovely’ comment suggests, to me, it was not actually sheep dip (ie he thought it was lovely they covered up the STD meds with 'sheep dip') now, one of the ways we could bolster this anecdote as a historical source is establish a pattern of behaviour and explore the question - is there proof Paul has ever had an STD?

..i mean, the man was a well documented slag (complimentary). but, alas, we don’t really have cold hard proof. Bob Spitz 'The Beatles: Biography' (2005) mentions that they all had gonorrhoea in the Hamburg days but doesn't cite a source to back it up (classic journo-biographer)

the closest we maybe get is the Itchy Dick episode of January 1969. Itching of the ‘penis’ (latin for penis) can be a symptom of STDs such as the clap, it can also be infections of a less sexual kind (yeast, eczema, depression)

in conclusion - the answer to the question ‘Did Paul Treat Crabs with Sheep Dip?’ is:

ok ok - it was probs not literal sheep dip, but maybe meds labelled ‘sheep dip’ to keep all that adultery under wraps - but, as with most of the beatle stories, it only comes from one source

[mcbeardymullet]

🧵in this thread i will explore The Historiography of the 6th of July 1957, aka when John Lennon and Paul McCartney met pt. iii

(part i) (part ii)

right buckle up, we’re at Mark Lewisohn’s ‘Tune In Extended Edition’ (2013) 

Lewisohn digs into the details, particularly about the songs played, and Mimi’s reaction. re: John’s outfit, Lewisohn states the photos show he wasn’t dressed like a Teddy Boy. I ain’t an expert, but i reckon one could argue John was, at least with the hair, in teddy boy land. 

On the meeting itself, Lewisohn states it initially took place in the scout hut, but Paul’s showing off was in the church hall. Beer was drunk (gasp), Paul got on the piano, and John thought he looked like Elvis.  

we’re nearly there everyone, Craig Brown's ‘One, Two, Three, Four’ (2020) 

Again, we have the Scout Hut → Church Hall movement but with more focus on Paul being shy until he started to perform. Nicely, Brown summarises how the tale of the Woolton Fete meeting has warped and changed over the years. 

onto ‘Paul McCartney: The Lyrics’ (2021, p. 119, 235 & 383)

Not anything new really apart from the 'seeing John around prior to the fete' anecdote. also, a slightly sassy 'they weren't a great band but john was good'

the penultimate text, Ian Leslie’s ‘John and Paul: A Love Story in Songs’ (2025). Like Lewisohn, Leslie spends a lot of real estate on the songs performed, and particularly ‘Come Go with Me’, highlighting it was, as the kids would call it today, a deep cut. 

On the meeting, Leslie doesn’t mention the scout hut, and notes that John & Paul were introduced outside the church hall. Once in the Hall, Paul performed and John’s beery breath arrived. Leslie doesn’t mention how Shotton’s recollection changed over the years. Hurumph. 

and finally, we have the 25th Anniversary Reissue of ‘The Beatles Anthology’ (2025)

...again, not much to note other than the beatles anthology is a very pretty book.

And so, that concludes our foray into how the meeting between Lennon and McCartney occurred on the July 6th 1957, and wot has done been written about it. happy july 6th mclennon monday 2026 to you ALL.

[mcbeardymullet]

The History of Paul McCartney's ID Bracelet (part iv: the finale)

(part i) (part ii) (part iii) (part v: correction)

(14th sep '95)

FOUR threads. On a BRACELET? Yeah. yeah that’s right. This ones shorter tho. And contrary to my behaviour, i do have a full time job. Anywho, time for the 1990s.

this more than anything fuels the ‘paul’s id bracelet was very important to him’ discourse, and brings much speculation as to who the gift giver was

the earliest sighting of the/an/one id bracelet in the 90s appears in September ‘93. it can be spotted back on his LEFT wrist, duing a performance and in an interview

(14th sep '93) & (18th sep '93)

now we’re into the anthology of it all. I’m not an expert on when anthology interviews/recordings took place, so it’s a bit of a guestimation. However, you can see the bracelet pop up intermittently, on his RIGHT wrist

the sighting in ‘95 during the threetle chat with George M. looks like its the ‘73 version, with its skinnyness.

paul wears it on and off in the 90s, mostly in ‘95, and again it looks more like the ‘73 version. notably, he wears it when he’s knighted in ‘97. thereafter, the bracelet is banished once more.

(28th jul '95) & (16th oct '95)

(11th mar '97)

in 1998 Paul answers a question about an ID bracelet in Q&A for Q magazine. he has to go and complicate matters by saying that his ID bracelet says his name, like the ‘63 version. For godsake man let me rest!!! https://the-paulmccartney-project.com/interview/cash-for-questions/

but, in all seriousness, the ‘73 version could also have his name inscribed on it - we just don’t have a clear close up of paul’s ‘73 bracelet. or, he could have gotten a new one for the 90s. Let’s look at the comparative material:

to my eye, the ‘73 & 90s versions look the same, with the ‘63 looking the most different, largely due to the shape of the plate itself

now, you can believe what you want to believe. however I do perhaps think reports of paul’s emotional attachment to a bracelet received in ‘63 have been somewhat over estimated, and its likely he did not wear the exact same one in the 70s & 90s so, in conclusion (imho):

paul had more than one id bracelet

paul wore the '63 bracelet consistently from mid '63 to the end of '64 (approx. 18 months)

the ‘63 bracelet was *likely* gifted by jane for his 21st, inscribed with his name

‘73 bracelet was *likely* a botr wrap present, inscription debatable

the '73 bracelet was worn intermittantly from '73-'79

the ‘73 bracelet was m. likely to have been worn in the 90s due to similarity in bracelet plate size

i stand on the shoulders of many tumblr sleuthing posts before me: https://tumblr.com/aceonthebass/152006283970/were-you-going-to-post-some-information-about

https://tumblr.com/factcheckingmclennon/758247993175572480/john-giving-paul-a-bracelet-fact-or-fiction?source=share

https://tumblr.com/beatlessideblog/771423489422983168?source=share

i hope you enjoyed this ludicrous foray into jewellery worn by a man currently in his 80s. i would like to stop looking at paul’s lovely lovely wrists now. cheers x

(EDIT: new correction part about '66 bracelet here: (part v: correction) )

[mcbeardymullet]

🧵in this thread i will explore The Historiography of the 6th of July 1957, aka when John Lennon and Paul McCartney met pt. ii

(part i) (part iii)

in David Pritchard & Alan Lysaght’s ‘The Beatles: An Oral History’ (1998, pp.13-15), we get various different named figures recollecting that fateful day at Woolton from NON DESCRIPT sources

All rather expected, apart from Julia Baird emphasising Mimi *wasn’t* there. 

in the Paul sanctioned Barry Miles ‘Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now’ (1998, pp. 26 - 27)

Extra details include John & Paul excitedly bonding over music (classic), and Paul’s outfit being partly modelled on the song ‘A White Sports Coat and a Pink Carnation’ released Jan ‘57

whew we’ve hit the 21st century - Tony Barrow, ‘John, Paul, George, Ringo, and Me’ (2005, p.46)

Well, well, well, this is quite the different impression - Barrow alleges Paul initially thought the Quarrymen were “not very cool” and that “John was a bit of a slob.” then they started playing and all was grand. Ofc, there is no citation for Paul’s words. Just vibes. 

let’s see what Cynthia has to say in Cynthia Lennon, ‘John’ (2005)

Well. Short and sweet, with a splash of inaccuracy re: Paul’s age

now we reach the dizzying heights of Bob Spitz’s ‘The Beatles’ (2005) 

So we have a few new/interesting moments. (1) Colin Hanton says there was NO DRINKING thank you very much. (2) Mimi was pleased vs. Mimi was horrified conundrum (3) The meeting took place in the scout hut, NOT the church hall

Len Garry attests there was a stony atmosphere (5) Paul’s sports coat looked ‘comical’ on him >:( (6) paul bought his own guitar. may i also take a moment to give emphasis to the line “his spunk was jacked up several notches”

next up, it’s back to everyone's favourite bitter troll Philip Norman with ‘John Lennon: The Life’ (2005, pp. 103 - 108) 

Points of interest: Michael notes that Mimi *may* have rounded up the family members to attend the fete, the ‘was john drunk’ debacle is refuted by most of the Quarrymen members AND alongside borrowing a guitar, paul also showed off his skills on the piano. 

in Peter Ames Carlin’s ‘Paul McCartney: A Life’ (2009, pp. 25 - 27):

There’s not much of note in this version. We do get recognition of Paul potentially spotting John round town prior to their introduction at the fete. Again, we have the meeting at the scout hut rather than the hall, and Paul *also* being a bit ‘sloshed’ (mentioned in the beatle’s anthology)

(cont. here)

[mcbeardymullet]

The History of Paul McCartney's ID Bracelet (part iii: the disappearance?)

(part i) (part ii) (part iv) (part v: correction)

(c. mid '76 during wings across america tour)

oh. you again. still reading about this bracelet? Alright, suit yourself. congrats, we’re in a new decade: the 1970s! paul has a mullet! and is a stylish little minx! now you might’ve heard whisperings that, at some point in the 70s, paul starts wearing his ID bracelet again

this is often used as cold hard evidence that (1) the bracelet is a meaningful item to ar paul and (2) it wasn’t originally from jane

the bracelet seemingly reappears on 21st novembre ‘73, with the absolute mad man now wearing it on his RIGHT wrist (!). he doesn’t need a watch anymore apparently, mr big potatoes

other photos on the same day also show the paul wearing the bracelet

but, eagle eyed viewers may have spotted…linda and denny are ALSO wearing similar looking bracelets..omg…

thankfully for us, there is a pretty good close up of linda’s bracelet, where we can somewhat make out the inscription - now, call me a fool, but it looks like it says ‘band on the run’

i can’t find a close up of denny’s but from afar it looks very similar to linda’s. now the question becomes: is paul’s bracelet the ‘63 one, or is it new? Well reader, look at the material:

i don’t think that’s the same bracelet!!!! the 70s plate is thinner and longer, whereas the ‘63 is bulkier, the shape is different lads

i couldn’t find anything in wings literature to suggest that these id bracelets were ‘Band on the Run’ wrap presents, other than a singular quora response. adrienne, wherever you are, where did you get this info?? A magazine perhaps??? Tell me!!

paul wears this bracelet intermittently throughout the rest of the 70s, and it seems fairly consistently the longer, thinner, 70s one introduced in ‘73. i couldn’t find a clear enough picture with an inscription so i don’t know for certain it also says band on the run

the one outlier i’ve possibly found is this pic, where it looks possibly like the bulkier ‘63 bracelet. however, i don’t know the date for when this pic was taken, and lord knows i’ve tried. the closest estimates i’ve found were 72/73 based on auctioned wings jumpers

https://bid.tracksauctions.com/auction/lot/lot-226---paul-mccartney-and-wings-henry-mcculloughs-1972-wings-ritva-man-tour-shirt-uk/?lot=678&sd=1

the poster in back suggests its 23/07/72 in bordeaux, during the wings over europe tour. at this time paul seemed to favour a silver band bracelet with lil balls, so perhaps in the photo it is a clasp rather than the plate of an id bracelet (?)

there is also a piccie of paul recording red rose speedway in london '72 (date not specified ofc) where he wears a wings jumper and a non-id-looking silver bracelet

or, *maybe* paul wore the ‘63 bracelet briefly and then swapped it out for the slinky ‘73 version. or he mixed and matched. Idk. he won’t return my calls...

by the end of the 1970s, the bracelet has once again flown the nest. In ‘79/'80 it looks like he had another slimmer id bracelet, but this could also just be a dainty chain. i also can’t tell if either the ‘63 or ‘73 bracelet accompanied him on his japan drug bust. u can be the judge

so that’s it, right? wrong! time to go into the 1990s, see you there!

[mcbeardymullet]

The History of Paul McCartney's ID Bracelet (part v: CORRECTION)

(part i) (part ii) (part iii) (part iv)

hiii. me again. sorry. i have a correction to make. sorry. so remember the whole 'the bracelet reappeared for one day in '66' thing. well, as tumblr user toadbit rightfully pointed out...that ain't the same bracelet shape. doh. ('63 vs '66)

SO, the '63 bracelet drops off after dec '64. now we gotta ask...where did this '66 bracelet come from?? paul isn't wearing it, perhaps he borrwed it from someone & is using it as a retro fidget toy? or could've been a gift from a journo right there n then? maybe its ringos??

it could also be a replacement bracelet that he just didn't wear that often. its all a guessing game now. more pertinantly, is the '66 bracelet the same one from the 70s/90s?? well, lets look at the the updated comparative image

is it the same one? maybe?? idk??? to my eye the '66 looks a bit thicker and more curved (oo-er) than the 70s/90s, which looks a bit longer and thinner (oo..er?)

i think as it appears once in '66 and isn't worn consistently, there is some weight to it being a different bracelet to the one worn in the latter years. a temporary bracelet for a stressful time, perhaps.

maybe paul just had a different id bracelet for each decade. maybe he kept losing them. maybe he just really likes buying id bracelets. the man's greed for bracelets knows no bounds!!!

and, unless any new information emerges, i'll leave it there for bracelet watch. pls. PLS.