I am currently reading George Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow, which says George Washington was an even 6 feet (183cm) tall:
It is commonly said that Washington stood six foot two or three, an estimate that gained currency after a doctor measured his corpse at six feet three and a half inches. ... There is no need for any guesswork. Before the Revolutionary War, Washington ordered clothes from London each year and had to describe his measurements with great accuracy. In a 1761 letter, he informed his remote taylor that "my stature is six feet, otherwise rather slender than corpulent," and he never deviated from that formula. Obviously Washington couldn't afford to tell a fib about his height to his tailor. One can only surmise that when the doctor measured his cadaver, his toes were pointing outward, padding hsi height by several inches compared with his everyday stature. (page 29).
But a few months ago I read His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph J. Ellis, which contradicts this, saying Washington was at least 6'2" (188cm):
His coats, shirts, pants, and shoes were all ordered from a London tailor, but they invariably did not fit. He complained that "my Cloaths have never fitted me well," but the reason for the persistent problem was that the instructions he customarily gave his tailor were misleading. For example, when ordering an overcoat he directed the tailor to "make it to fit a person Six feet high and proportionally made, & you cannot go much amiss." But Washington was at least two inches taller than six feet and disproportionately made, with very broad shoulders and huge hips. (chapter 2)
The two historians clearly use some of the same evidence (orders to London), but draw distinctly different conclusions.
What evidence do we have to support either the claim that George Washington was 6'0" (183cm), or 6'2"-6'3" (188-191cm) in height? I'm assuming there is no consensus among historians, so I'm interested in an overview of the main points in favor of both views.