How tall was Sean Connery - Page 2

Canson said on 6/Apr/20
@Rampage: at this stage in their lives in 2020 who would you say is taller between he and Hackman?

VitoCheng said on 21/Mar/20
When young or getting out of bed: 6ft 2 .25
Current: 6ft 2
When I saw this list, I would like to see Connery take a photo with Arnold one day, and see if Arnold's peak is comparable to Connery.

Tall In The Saddle said on 4/Mar/20
@Rampage
In terms of height held, yes, I think Connery has done well but I still haven't seen pics of him out and about for while.
There is a question mark on his health, but of course he is near 90 as you said. All the way back to 2013 Michael Caine firmly denied reports claiming that he said that Sean had Alzheimer's. I checked and life expectancy for this disease is between 3 and 11 years, though some surviving up to 20 years. Depends on the degree of progress/impairment and age at diagnosis. Avg. age for diagnosis is 65 yo. However, say you were diagnosed at 75 yo, you're closing in on average life expectancy anyway. Sean has been appearing in public less and less since around 2013 which can still be normal for someone getting up in years like Sean. Last pics I saw of him outside there appeared a hint of vacancy in his eyes. I also read that he was having difficulty understanding the plots in the last several movies he made. Again, this can all go with normal aging and perhaps signalled Sean it was time to retire.
I understand you have Sean at a strong 6'2" peak. I guess him a bit less, 6'1.5" to 6'1.75" range. I certainly see comparisons that suggest 6'2" but others that suggest not quite there, so for me it's just a case of averaging it out. Also, I don't dismiss Sean's posture, which IMO was less than ideal and not as well maintained as say, Michael Caine's.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 27/Feb/20
Connery has done exceptionally well for a guy closing in on 90.

Tall In The Saddle said on 26/Feb/20
@Rampage: Sure, if Sean is looking closer to 6ft now I would guess he could still squeeze out another 1" for a measurement. Generally, we all don't stand to attention as if ready to be measured. Our natural postures usually hold a bit extra in reserve if we expressly straighten. This is probably the case more so in older people whose postures are that much more declined. At least IMO, Clint Eastwood is a good example. Over a series of photos at the same event, Clint can appear shorter, taller and then shorter again which I think is due to his randomly standing to his full potential then slouching again. Just my take on it.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Feb/20
@Tall In The Saddle: Today Sean is looking closer to 6ft but the question is could he squeeze out more if measured?

Tall In The Saddle said on 22/Feb/20
It seems it's been a while since Sean was last seen in public. The last photos I saw he wasn't with anyone of known status or known height, just his carer and some other guys, some of whom appeared to be big dudes.
He still looked reasonably tall within himself, well proportioned but notably somewhat thinner with natural age related muscular atrophy. Certainly not displaying the same relative height loss as Eastwood.
Any photos with anyone else of note since Andy Roddick back in 2012? Even back then, as compared to Roddick, Sean appeared 6ft or not much over that mark but was also not standing perfectly straight.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Feb/20
Can look barely 6ft now when standing but I think could still stretch up to near 6ft1 if measured

RichardSpain said on 8/Jan/20
A Strong 188cm when he was young

187 in last crusade
185 nowadays

RichardSpain said on 8/Jan/20
A Strong 188cm when he was young

187 in last crusade
185 nowadays

Ian C. said on 20/Dec/19
The reason, Tall, that Connery's Bond was so good is that Connery, for all his good looks, looked cruel and violent. Consider for examplethat fight between Connery and Robert Shaw in From Russia With Love. That's about the meanest fight you'll ever see in the movies. Roger Moore admitted to being a pacifist and, in his Bond movies, violence is shown as playful roughhousing in which nobody ever really gets hurt. Killing and beating people up is all just a lark, which always struck me as grotesque in its immorality.

Daniel Craig returned Bond to the sense that violence is a terrible thing. Craig won me over as James Bond about five minutes into Casino Royale, when he kills the double agent in a sordid, brutal brawl in a public washroom and then, for a second there, seems to regret the killing. Also, Craig's Bond eschews the breezy little quips that are completely absent from any of Fleming's books, and which were juvenile and smirking even when Connery made them.

The Bond books are widely derided today because of their unabashed sexism, racism and snobbery, but the character in the book seems like a real human being, and moreover somebody you could actually like and admire. James Bond as Fleming wrote him can feel fear and remorse, and does not sleep with women and heartlessly discard them, as he does in the movies. In several of the books, Bond does not sleep with the Bond girl at all. He is also a heavy smoker and very nearly a habitual drunkard. He is a man and not a cartoon character, although his age seems to be a constant 36, regardless of the year.

Oddly, there are no children in any of the books or movies. Bond has no interest in parenthood, nor do any of the characters he ever runs into. And of course, he never worries about birth control, as why would you if you live in a strange land with no inhabitants under the age of twenty-one?

Tall In The Saddle said on 19/Dec/19
Another thing to consider re the Bond character. A clinical assessment of his literary personality traits might identify him as Path. Psycho-Path. High functioning. Never shaken or stirred.
If that was the intention for the character then I would say Sean nailed it and far better than any other Bond.
Also I guess Bond gave birth to the classic one liners of the action hero. I’m not good at verbatim quotes but remember a scene in which one of Bonds conquests laments that her mouth is too big. Bond allays her concerns and replies that it is just the right size for him.
Double Oh Behave! Classic. Puts a different connotation on the numerical significance of 007. Suffice to say Bonds fellow agent 003.5 didn’t get any where near the action that James did.

Tall In The Saddle said on 19/Dec/19
@Ian C

Just an aside, when in primary school I was offered by a school mate to swap a toy for what we called a wiggle/flicker ring or technically known as a lenticular ring. Just a plastic ring that displayed two different images when tilted one way or another. Well, the first image was 007 and when I tilted the ring the image of Sean Connery appeared. I exclaimed "who's the old guy? That's not James Bond." and I promptly called of the swap. LOL. What an idiot. Wish I had that ring now. Found something like it online Click Here

Tall In The Saddle said on 19/Dec/19
@Ian C

My first recollection of being cognizant of the Bond character was when I was in primary school and Roger Moore had assumed the mantle. Not that I knew then that he had assumed any mantle, he was just Bond. I assumed he played the role as intended. Very upper class and at least in that regard I found Moore believable.

I only saw that Connery had played the role well after the fact. Just me perhaps, but Sean came across that much less refined, his working class roots evident. Don't get me wrong, he still played it very cool, intelligent and highly capable.

I read Connery's bio years back. As you said, Connery left school very early, at age 13 in fact. The interesting thing was that he had a tremendous thirst for knowledge and strong desire to improve himself. As such, he set himself the task of devouring "must" read literature. He basically educated himself from the point at which he left school and continued to do so throughout his career.

Perhaps being privy to Sean's actual beginnings prejudices my view but in his playing of Bond, I can see an intelligent, self educated guy, well aware of the upper class ways and finer things in life feigning to have come through the upper class channels and having the panache to float it among the less critical but also displaying unconcealable evidence of a man hewn through no nonsense working class ways and definitive action. Basically, Sean combined the best of both worlds in approximating himself to be upper class but being even more believable as someone possessing sufficient intelligence, looks, physique and athleticism to carry out the achievements afforded to Bond. A combination of upper class style and working class substance that Moore did not bring to the table.

As to a lot of actors playing themselves, I agree. Even if their portrayals are still within the realms of their own true character, there is still scope to "act" in so far their putting themselves wholly into the context of the story and replicating how they would act and feel if they were actually in the situation.

Then there are other actors who put in absolute chameleon performances even if one off. It's pure acting at it's best all the way down the line. They are completing acting outside themselves and totally believable in doing so. One example I can give is Billy Bob Thornton's role in Sling Blade. Acting? He was Karl Childers full stop. That's how good Thornton was.

Ian C. said on 17/Dec/19
I think, Tall, that most major movie stars essentially play themselves. I'll bet Clark Gable, John Wayne, Gary Cooper and Cary Grant were all very much like the characters they played in movies. Marlon Brando, who often gets picked as the greatest actor in movie history, actually did have a personality (brutish, hypersexual and narcissistic) that was very close to that of Stanley Kowalski in Streetcar Named Desire, which is why that role is his only really powerful piece of acting. When he tried to be a versatile character actor (most notably in Mutiny on the Bounty) he often failed.

Also my own guess is that 90 percent of any actor's talent in the first years of his stardom is down to his or her physical appeal. Beauty is practically a requirement for women, but not necessarily for men. The only male star I can think of who had no gifts other than physical beauty (which, to be fair, is the right word) is Arnold Schwarzenegger. He really did look magnificent when he was young but his real life personality dominated all the parts he played. Since he is a friendly, good-natured and happy man, he was always miscast as the brutal, violent men he played in the movies. If he had had a personality like Charles Bronson, who in real life was an angry misanthrope, he would have been perfect in all his movies.

Connery is an interesting case of an actor who really was successful playing a character with a personality different from his own. For one thing he left school at a very young age, so he had to compensate for a heavy personal handicap in playing the upper class, public- schooled James Bond. His physicality, like Schwarzenegger's was so dominant that it got him through the door, but once through it he actually learned to occupy the room it opened into it. Unlike Schwarzenegger.

Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Dec/19
@Ian C

I agree that Connery made Bond the success that it was. IMO the key was that Sean turned the role more into himself rather than strictly fitting himself into the book described character. In short, Connery didn’t so much become Bond as much as he made Bond become Connery. How can any other actor beat Connery in a role in which he played a large measure of himself?
Hoagy Carmichael? When I first read that I thought well, Author Fleming bore a fair resemblance to Hoagy. Perhaps an indirect way for the author to indulge and describe Bond as looking like himself.
Maybe that’s also why Fleming wasn’t too thrilled with Sean initially perhaps feeling his self described character was well and truly exceeded by Sean at least in physical terms.
I also read that Connery coincidentally bore a strong resemblance to the original character drawn for the comic strip which was first released in 1958 some 4 years before Sean first played the role.

Ian C. said on 7/Dec/19
I read all the Bond books when I was a teenager, Tall, and by the time I had read my first I had seen Connery in the movies as Bond. So of course I can't imagine Bond looking like somebody else. (And especially not Roger Moore.) Connery was not just any tall, handsome Brit, in the same way that John Wayne was not just any large, tough American. Connery was the last word in good looks and suave cool, and has never been topped. Daniel Craig, who is a better actor than Connery, is emotionally spot on as Bond. He's tough, athletic, upper class cool and intelligent. But he's handicapped by his looks. He has sandy hair, and a blunt, overmuscled body. And he's too short.

The Bond of the books is described as looking like Hoagy Carmichael. Google up pictures of Carmichael and that guy is not even close to Connery in looks and virility. Ian Fleming underestimated how Bond should have looked, and Connery set him straight. Connery made Bond the phenomenon that the character eventually became.

The second most fortunate casting in movie history is Boris Karloff as Frankenstein's monster. It is nearly ninety years since the movie Frankenstein came out, and everybody today understands that the monster looks like Karloff. And of course, ninety five percent of Karloff's performance in that part is down to his perfect monster face. Good casting is overwhelmingly based on the physical characteristics of the actors cast.

Tall In The Saddle said on 4/Dec/19
Well it comes down to semantics but I would view "greatest" in terms of ability vs "most popular" which speaks for itself.
For example, having worked with both, Kevin Costner said he viewed Connery as the bigger star (popular) but Hackman as the greater actor (ability).
A lot of people haven't read the books from which described characters are sourced - so they are none the wiser as to what the character is supposed to look like physically while others who have read the book often mould the character subjectively in their own minds eye.
I don't know that it is that important for the actor to be exactly as described - only that he/she has physical attributes to reconcile to their exploits and also at least in the case of Bond their attractiveness to the opposite sex.
I've said before that IMHO Connery doesn't so much act as does simply playing himself.
A tall, strong, good looking Alpha type will fundamentally work for a lot of roles and it worked for Connery in the Bond role even though Sean didn't exactly uphold the refinements of the book described Bond.
Likely already known by all but interesting to note that Ian Fleming was not thrilled with the choice of Connery before eventually warming to it. His first choice was Richard Todd who IMHO was an excellent actor who might've floated the belief in the potentials of the character physically but who was well below the designated Bond height of 6 feet.

Asa said on 3/Dec/19
Strong 6'2" in peak. Could certainly be 189 out of bed, 188ish during the day. Today probably around a weak 6'1"

Ian C. said on 30/Nov/19
Actually, Arch, "greatest" movie star and "most popular" are reasonable synonyms. Movies are industrial products designed to turn a profit, and Wayne and Presley could always be counted on to make movies profitable by the simple act of starring in them. Wayne could still sell tickets when he was a sick, old man.

Personally I like exactly two John Wayne movies (Rio Bravo and El Dorado), and I'm willing to concede that some of Wayne's movies with John Ford are very good. I wouldn't watch an Elvis movie sober, unless you paid me four dollars a minute, But you really can't argue with Presley's appeal, strange as it seems to me.

Of course, my estimates of who are the greatest movie stars are closely tied to my age. I was a teenager in the sixties, when my enjoyment of movies was most intense, so the stars I pick as the greatest were also the ones who were most popular at that time. There are probably people who love Tom Cruise and Dwayne Johnson, but they are quite a bit younger than I am. Ask people from earlier generations, and they would pick Gary Cooper or Marilyn Monroe. Arguably the most popular movie star in the history of movies was Rudolph Valentino, whose death caused female fans to collapse in hysterics.

Arch Stanton said on 28/Nov/19
Ian C. said on 16/Oct/19

Who is the greatest movie star of all time? It's a tie: John Wayne and Elvis Presley. Both men made numerous movies that would have flopped if other actors had been cast in the parts they played in them.

Meaning "most popular" rather than "greatest". I agree, a large number of Wayne's films weren't anything special but his presence made them what they are. Nearly all of Elvis's films were crap but he had a huge presence. Always enjoyed Viva Las Vegas in particular. Sinatra and Dean Martin too, the original Ocean's 11 is a disappointing film, but they make it what it is. Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant were in a class of their own though in making virtually every film they ever starred in good. I think there's only one film of Stewart's which I didn't like!

Saw Goldfinger a few weeks back, Connery looked about an inch taller than Gert Frobe, though you could argue 184 for him.

Ian C. said on 25/Nov/19
A recent example of a would-be franchise that didn't take off because of bad casting is the Jack Reacher series. The Reacher books are best-sellers, but the two movies made from Reacher novels were duds because Tom Cruise, who bears no physical resemblance to the Reacher of the books, was cast in the lead. Much of the appeal of the Reacher character is that he is a physical giant, so Cruise was wrong right out of the box, and can never be made to fit the character in the books. A short Jack Reacher is as jarring as a six foot tall Frodo. Height really does matter in casting. (Why was Gary Oldman hired to play Dracula, anyway? Dracula must be tall.)

Connery as Bond was physically perfect- in fact Connery was bigger, stronger and handsomer than the Bond of the books. In the first movie, Dr. No, Connery's working class origins were fairly obvious- he was a truck driver in an expensive suit, trying to pass himself off as a toff. It wasn't until the third installment, Goldfinger, that Connery finally acquired the right upper class vibe, possibly because his newfound wealth allowed him access to real upper crust Englishmen, which he then successfully imitated. But it was his physical appearance that got him there.

Tall In The Saddle said on 18/Oct/19
Discussion re Connery being THE ultimate Bond brings to mind the woulda shoulda coulda lament of certain actors who passed on roles that later became iconic - as if the role/story in their own right would automatically guarantee success.
For instance Selleck knocking back Indiana Jones - well actually he didn't, CBS prevented him from doing the movie . At any rate, certainly once an actor assumes a role and it is successful it is hard to objectively divorce them from that role and imagine someone else playing the character with equal or greater success - even IF someone may well have done so. The important thing for me is that role descriptions are not set in stone - they are open to the actor's interpretation and in some cases, suggested add on traits/nuances/modifications.
Point being, the success of the Indiana Jones franchise wasn't just based on the essence of the character and supporting story- IMO it was also anchored in Harrison Ford the actor, his own physical presence and how he chose to play the character. I like Selleck but I can't imagine him bringing the same qualities and success to the role - and I think Ford's body of work and adaption to roles otherwise backs that opinion.
I like Connery too - but I see more Connery the actual man than Connery the actor in most of his roles and if you like Connery the man then you will likely accept him in the role - even if he's playing a Russian Submarine commander with a Scottish accent - lol.
Also hard to go past Caine and Connery in the Man Who Would Be King - BUT Huston's original picks were Gable and Bogie - but Bodie died - then it was Gable and Caine but then Gable died.
I can definitely imagine Bogie and Gable owning/interpreting the characters in their own iconic way and making a similarly great movie.

Ian C. said on 16/Oct/19
Oh. Thanks Sandy. Connery deserves more credit than anyone, other than Ian Fleming, for the Bond craze. One of the original choices for the actor to play Bond was David Niven, which would have been absurd, and would have sunk the franchise with the first movie. Roger Moore was a terrible choice to play Bond but, by the time he took over the role, the series had become so well established that even Moore couldn't wreck it, and that was thanks to Sean Connery.

Casting is probably the most important step in making a successful movie, beating out even the script. Now and then you get a movie that succeeds in spite of indifferent casting (Star Wars, for example), but usually when a movie hits it is because of the appeal of at least one major star in it. This is why movie stars are paid so much.

Who is the greatest movie star of all time? It's a tie: John Wayne and Elvis Presley. Both men made numerous movies that would have flopped if other actors had been cast in the parts they played in them.

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 15/Oct/19
@ Ian C - I couldn't agree more with the casting of Sean Connery as James Bond. I'm not exactly a Bond fanatic, but if I have to see one, I try to plump for one with the six two Sean playing the plum part!

He was brilliant in Marnie too, a film I first saw at the tender age of nine. My friend, Rosemary, who lived three doors away, saw it too, and we were both really rather freaked out!

Here's hoping this finds you well and happy,

All the best! 🥂

Sandy XXX 😁👍

Ian C. said on 13/Oct/19
Connery as Bond was the luckiest casting in the history of the movies, even if it wasn't until Goldfinger that he got that casually superior British upper class attitude right.

And the perfect height. Suppose Christopher Lee had been cast as Bond. Too tall, although perfectly dark, handsome, aristocratic and cruel.

Original said on 12/Oct/19
6'2" peak.

Importer said on 22/Sep/19
An edit on my comment June 8th. Proportions has nothing to do with height. What I meant to say was that a 6’2” with Connery’s proportions is perfection. Ofcourse my opinion.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Sep/19
Berta, I think he’d still clear 6ft now if measured. I honestly think him and Costner would be close...

berta said on 3/Sep/19
Rob could he reallly at worst be only 183 today? I dont see that. Really think he only kost 3,5 cm going from 188 ish to 184,5. Still looks tall. 183 doesnt really look tall.

Canson said on 23/Aug/19
I’m not sure he was a strong 6’2”. A solid 6’2” is very possible tho

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/Aug/19
Importer, I stand by Connery being a strong 6ft2 at peak but by the 80’s-90’s at worst maybe more a weak 6ft2...but you’re right hardly noticeable. He’s done far better than other guys that age

Importer said on 10/Aug/19
Sean Connery’s last appearance on TV was about 20years ago so I don’t think a peak/current height is necessary tbh. @Rampage(-_-_-)Clover I always considered Kevin Costner to be more a legit 6’1” than to downgrade Connery in that movie, 1/4 inch is the most he might have lost in the 20th century, I’d guess 1/8 loss because it wasn’t noticeable at all.

Importer said on 10/Aug/19
Sean Connery’s last appearance on TV was about 20years ago so I don’t think a peak/current height is necessary tbh.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Jul/19
Berta I think Connery was maybe a little bit down from his peak by The Untouchables/Last Crusade/Hunt For Red October years. Could look more like a weak 6ft2. You could still say Costner looked 186cm with him though. And like you said Ford was already losing a small bit

berta said on 23/Jul/19
he did only look 2 cm taller than costner back at an age where he didnt have lost any height. but i see costner as close to 186 peak. 188 cm peak is good listing. even today he still looks around 184-185 cm. He did look around 4 cm taller and Harrison ford also, but ford could have been down to 183,5 after injury already then and that would make connery 187,5. I thought he was 189 when i was younger but i dont think he was more than at best 188,5 and never under 187,5

Rory said on 17/Jul/19
6ft2 1/8th peak
6ft0.5 today

jeffy-france said on 4/Jul/19
Editor Rob: Today could be anywhere in 6ft to 6ft 0.75 range I feel.

maybe he can brush the weak 185cm standing straight? actually he doesn't seems to have lost much also today...

jeffy-france said on 2/Jul/19
Rob is plausible 6'2/188cm peak and 6'.75/185cm today?

Tall In The Saddle said on 17/Jun/19
Connery shexiest man alive?

In response to the accolade Sean replied "Well there aren't many shexy dead men, are there?"

What a Shmart Ass! - cue Connery's oversized fist heading in my general direction

Shix One and Three Quarters (keep the change - and Sean would) for Big Tam

Importer said on 12/Jun/19
@cmillzz
Something you want to share?

cmillzz said on 10/Jun/19
@Importer
lol

Importer said on 8/Jun/19
The perfect tall height for a man, proportionally more appealing than a flat 6'1 than a flat 6'3" respectively in that order imo.

190-190.5cm in the morning w/o footwear
188-188.5cm in the evening w/o footwear

Sean Connery certainly was a flat-classic 6'2" guy.

Johan 185 cm said on 17/May/19
Rory said on 19/Mar/19
Connery at 6ft2 1/8th and Caine at 6ft1.75 could be perfect.

--------

Agreed, he was taller than Caine not by much but still noticeable.

grizz said on 16/May/19
Gotta agree with Tall In The Saddle, his estimate seems reasonable and well explained.

Neelasish Send Roy said on 10/Mar/19
Did Sean Connery was sexiest person in the world? Although he weighs 190lbs.So what is his peak height,Rob?
---------------
LOL, you're making it seem like 190 lbs is a lot. He's a man, not a woman! An almost 6'2 tall former bodybuilder, so 190 lbs doesn't look all too shabby on someone like him.

James Brett 172cm said on 14/May/19
Rob in Diamonds are Forever for the entire film he really did stand with hunched posture didn’t he?

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/May/19
I know we gotta ease up on the eighths but we could alternatively give Caine 6ft1⅞(187.6cm) and Connery 6ft2⅛(188.3cm)

ND.IV said on 28/Mar/19
Totally agree with Tall In The Saddle : The most reasonable height might be 187 cms comparing to other actors such as Charles Gray (186 cms), Julian Glover (188 cms) or Donald Sutherland.

Benjamin Fritz said on 19/Mar/19
Wow the average guess jumped from 6'2.13" (isch) to 6'2.02" within a few days...

Rory said on 19/Mar/19
Connery at 6ft2 1/8th and Caine at 6ft1.75 could be perfect.

Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Mar/19
Well, IMHO there's no way Connery was a full inch taller than Caine - otherwise I would like to see evidence for same. Connery was arguably taller, yes, but only .5" max IMHO -

IMO, if you have Sean at 6'2" you've got to at least have Caine at 6'1.5" if not a smidge taller than that. The crazy part is that more often than not Connery could appear only equal to Caine and for the rest of the time he could in fact appear a shade shorter - not to be over apologetic but likely put down to Sean's less perfect posture - Caine on the other hand almost always stood to his full potential.

I'm giving Sean solid advantage based on some pretty clear cut vision in the TMWWB King - good evidence for Connery IMO - Click Here - walk in walk out long shots shows Sean to be taller, up close Caine might appear virtually equal but the angle sloping from right to left and Michael closer to camera is to Caine's advantage - I think reasonable estimators can see that.

Connery more often than not matches up well with others who claim 6'2" - (Hackman, Alda etc.) and he also appears appropriately 1" taller or shorter than celebs who were apparently about 1 " either side of that height (eg Costner, Eastwood etc.) - so on average comparison I would give 6'2" - but there are exceptions - Connery appearing a touch shorter than other 6'2" listed guys like Harry Andrews (The Hill) and older Desmond Llewelyn (Bond) and also appearing close to equal to 6'1.5" Kieron Moore (Darby O'Gill) to name a few of the exceptions. There are also the claims of Sean's stuntman - 6'1" and tailor 6'1.5" to be factored and not dismissed out of hand.

Also, there were guys like Sutherland and Anthony Costello (The Molly Maguires) both 6'3.5" a piece who looked a bit more than just 1.5" taller than Sean. Anyway...…..

All in all I would estimate Connery and Caine to likely be in the 6'1.5" - 6'1.75" range - could be wrong but I just have the general feel that Sean wasn't quite 6'2" but so close to that height that one couldn't argue with any strong conviction against it - calibrating height accurately to within .25" based on mere vision and potentially incorrect comparison heights is simply beyond human capability- I mean the 6'2" guys I nominated to appear taller than Connery (Andrews and Llewelyn) could have in all possibility have been a touch taller (say .25") than 6'2" themselves.

Mister lennon said on 14/Mar/19
He was a true 6'2 guy at peak. Minimum 188.
6'1.25 is way too low for him.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 14/Mar/19
Neelasish, C is the shortest I’d argue...I still think he could have been B and A earlier in the day. E-F zone belongs to Michael Caine

Canson said on 13/Mar/19
@Bobby: I think he was closer to 6’2” if not right on the money.

Neelasish Send Roy said on 13/Mar/19
What was his height in James Bond movies,Rob?
A)6'2"/188cm
B)6'1.75"/187.5cm
C)6'1.5"/187cm
D)6'1.25"/186cm
E)6'1"/185cm
Although James Bond tailor measured him 6'1.5"(187cm) at peak in 1962.

Neelasish Send Roy said on 10/Mar/19
Did Sean Connery was sexiest person in the world? Although he weighs 190lbs.So what is his peak height,Rob?
A)6'2.5"/189cm
B)6'2.25"/188.5cm
C)6'2"/188cm
D)6'1.75"/187.5cm
E6'1.5"/187cm

Pierre said on 10/Feb/19
Click Here here next to Johnny Depp and another pic when younger.

Jug said on 28/Jan/19
I believe Sir Sean was 6'1.5 in his prime, judging by everything I have seen him in. Standing next to 6'1-ish actors he always appeared slightly taller, so he could never have been less than 6'1. At most he was just slightly under the claimed 6'2.

Zsaint said on 18/Jan/19
He’s always at 6’1 or 2. At the end of the day Bob Simmons who was his stunt double stated Sean’s height was 6’1... i think we can safely say that this is a little more concrete than saying he « looked 6’3 or 6’3.5 » at times, yes he was tall and quite broad but it sounds like you are all sitting a bit too close to your screens.

Canson said on 9/Jan/19
I agree with Rampage that he was at his peak a decent maybe a good 6’3” in shoes. More I see of him he was probably a solid 6’2 peak

Canson said on 3/Jan/19
@Michael 5’10: he’s got competition though If they decide to go with Idris Elba although I don’t think it’s much difference between them. Connery I believe is 6’2” but Idris is probably within about a CM of him. I also heard somewhere that they had considered Seal!!!!

Michael 5'10", 178 cm said on 31/Dec/18
Sean always looked like the tallest Bond in the movies, I thought he could've been 6'3", but this is a good listing. He was no shorter than 188cm at his peak. Definitely a 6'2" guy in his youth and looked it more than the other Bonds who were more like 6'1". He was quite a bit taller than Richard Gere. I also remember him being taller than Harrison Ford in the Last Crusade. He was also noticeably taller than Nicholas Cage in the Rock. He was 6'2" when he was younger, more like 6'0" nowadays. He's in his 80's, he lost at least 2 inches in height.

Canson said on 30/Dec/18
@Richard Spain: maybe even 190-191 in shoes if he really was the full 6’2”

RichardSpain said on 29/Dec/18
188 cm barefoot when he was young
183/184cm barefoot nowadays older

With shoes very close 190 cm in prime younger

Great actor Mr Connery

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Dec/18
A decent 6ft3 in shoes of not 6ft3½

Mateusz said on 9/Dec/18
Connery always looked the tallest bond . My height is 6 ft 3 with shoes and connery looks about my height so my guess is that he was 6 ft 3 in shoes when he was James Bond .

Tall In The Saddle said on 26/Nov/18
I have not seen any reasonable photo showing Connery to be taller than Caine - at best for Connery I see them as equal while all other times I see Caine having a slight edge. I don't see Caine as any taller than 6'2" peak - so I can only see Connery 6'2" at best but probably more likely around the 6'1.5" to 6'1.75" mark. I will add that Caine appeared to stand with better posture more often than Connery did.

Greg99 said on 17/Nov/18
The odd thing is that pics of Ian Fleming with Sean Connery (Fleming was occasionally onset for the first three bond movies) Fleming looks maybe an inch at most shorter than Connery yet Fleming is listed at 6' even

Dream(5'9.5") said on 5/Nov/18
I grew up with this James Bond, but Roger Moore, along with Pierce Brosnan, are other Bonds (no pun intended) are also other bonds I've watched.

Rising - 174 cm said on 31/Oct/18
I agree Carrey is at least 6'1", but it's difficult to tell if he's shorter than Connery in that pic. His eye level is lower, but the top of their heads are too close to call and there looks to be a tilt in Connery's favor, though Carrey's posture is probably better. I don't know if Connery was the full 6'2" or only 6'1.5" peak, but he was definitely 6'1.5" max by the late 80's since 6'1.5" listed Kevin Kline was taller on video.

Z1854 said on 29/Oct/18
Carrey can’t be used as a benchmark.. he’s an inch shorter than jack Whitehall (see jacks instagram)

Mister lennon said on 27/Sep/18
Carrey a solid 6'1 minimum.
Connery a solid 6'2 peak.

viper said on 25/Sep/18
Carrey is 6-1 minimum. Still have Connery at 6-1.5 peak

Mister lennon said on 23/Sep/18
Carrey was and is a strong 6'1 guy.

Jtm said on 22/Sep/18
Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 24/Aug/18
Click Here Incredible at 78 he still edge out Jimy Carrey by 1/2.

that's because carrey is closer to 6'0 than 6'2.

Mister lennon said on 19/Sep/18
A strong 6'1 for caine and a solid 6'2 for connery is very close to the truth.
Hackman looks a solid 6'2 sometimes and a strong 6'1 sometimes. Tricky heigth.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 17/Sep/18
Rory 2cm is not noticeable. Besides they’re just rough estimates.
187-188cm for Caine and 188-189cm for Connery sound spot on. Hackman I keep at 188cm on the nose

Rory said on 15/Sep/18
No chance Connery was 2cm taller than Caine. 2cm is a noticeable difference when Connery only marginally edged him if at all. Wouldn't go under 187.5 for Caine and 188.5 tops for Connery.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Sep/18
Keep in mind both Connery and Hackman in their late 50’s were taller than a prime Kevin Costner

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Sep/18
Gracian the 6ft2 mark is reasonable for all three of them. However if I think one could argue Caine stood slightly shy of it and Connery slightly exceeded it while Hackman I’d put in the middle because he could look both a bit under and a bit over 6ft2 at times.

Caine: 187cm
Hackman: 188cm
Connery: 189cm

Just my opinion

viper said on 12/Sep/18
Never taller than 6-1.5

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Sep/18
Out of bed: 190.2cm
Before bed: 188.3cm

Lenad 5ft9.75in said on 3/Sep/18
That "6'1 1/2 without shoes" might've been with bad posture, evening measurement, or just internet yapping. Personally, I can buy 189cm for a young sean connery, but no more than that.

Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 24/Aug/18
Click Here Incredible at 78 he still edge out Jimy Carrey by 1/2.

Lenad 5ft9.75in said on 23/Aug/18
I think most likely he was 6'2 on the dot when young. Not sure if weak 188cm or solid, but I would give him 187cm at the very least. It has been claimed on the internet that he was given 6'1 1/2 without shoes by Bond tailors, maybe that was an evening measurement? Maybe it was just internet crap talk? Frank 2 met him in 1999 and said he was around 6 feet, but that was probably bad posture.

Mark Harrison said on 22/Aug/18
Charles Gray was 6'1".

Mister lennon said on 15/Aug/18
And both connery peak and reynolds are solid 6'2 guys.

Mister lennon said on 13/Aug/18
Desagree here. Im with rampage. The most of the times, connery looked taller than caine the most of times. And im not a fanboy of connery or caine. I like them as great actors, nothing more. Im only guessing their heigths.
Maybe caine has looked taller sometimes, but sean looked the tallest one the most of the times.
Connery looked the same or mayne a little bit shorter than desmond. And in both you only live twice and diamonds are forever, gray looked taller sometimes and connery taller sometimes. It depends of the posture, camera angles, etc.
Sean was a true 6'2 guy. 188-189. Probably 190 out of bed or a strong 189.
And far from being a fanboy or something.

viper said on 13/Aug/18
6-1.5 peak, same as Ryan Reynolds

MAD SAM said on 13/Aug/18
If anyone says he’s under 6’2” he would be a fool, he’s easily 188 cm guy

Z185 said on 10/Aug/18
I think that Connery was actually edged by Charles Gray in YOLT, but can’t be too sure. He always looked shorter than Desmond (Q) though who was probably a legit 1,88m.

Z185 said on 10/Aug/18
@newman ... I agree, it does seem that some people have a super soft spot for Connery... which is fair enough as he’s a cinematic legend, a great bloke and actor. However he doesn’t need to be 190cm to still be great. Compared to others in his range like Caine he never looks 6-3, and definitely not with female cast members in some of the early bonds. He was probably a well built 187cm if we are being honest. Even his stunt double Bob Simmons said Connery was 6’1 ... it’s fine to compare Sean to tables and other people in films but I think this guy would know better than most.

Newman said on 6/Aug/18
Rampage do you run the Sean Connery club or something?

You must have mentioned at least 3 times below that "Connery always looked an inch taller than Caine." When?....When? If anything, Caine looks half an inch taller. There must be 100 pictures on Google of them standing together.

As for your reference below to Connery looking taller than Charles Gray, show me some evidence. They looked dead level in both Bond films especially YOLT where they will have been peak height. In fact, having watched that garbage film Meteor yesterday I would say Connery was only 6ft 1 and some change.

Lots of people on here suggested Connery had a peak height of nearly 6ft 3 without providing any evidence. Could well have been under 6ft 2.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Aug/18
Berta, by then he may have been a weaker 6ft2 than the decade or so before. But 189cm does look arguable when you see him w/h Caine in the 70’s. Looked taller than guys like Jack Lord, Gert Frobe (184-185cm) and Charles Gray (maybe 186cm).

IMO, a prime Connery woke up at 6ft3 on the nose and closed the day at a little over 6ft2. He got measured 6ft2⅜ for the Mr. Universe and there’s no reason to believe that would be in shoes. Most likely a mid-morning measurement. So an eighth more to this listing is fair.

ND89 said on 30/Jul/18
Sutherland towered him easily by 2-2.5 inches taller than Connery

berta said on 28/Jul/18
connery is a hard one. he could have been 189 but with guys like christpher lambert- the guy from highlander. He could look in the 187 range. i think 6 fot 2 flat is pretty safe listing. maybe 1/8 over but probably not more. HE was/ is very well built, i guess that can made him appear bigger than he was sometimes

Thomas Feusi said on 25/Jul/18
Saw From Russia with Love yesterday evening.
Found this photo Sean with Daniela Bianchi from Russia with Love - Click Here.
Daniela Bianchi is 5ft7in(170cm) and Sean is not barefoot here but Daniela is.
My wife is 5ft 7in also like Daniela and i am 6ft 1.5i at morning 11am. We stand like them and it was very similar like the picture. So Sean was surely 6ft 1.5 in his youth but not more like Frank2 said it in the past.I think nowdays Sean is around 183-184cm.Only after a long sleep maybe i or him were 6ft2in.So 6ft2in is maybe a bit to high for Sean. Funny is that i did not loose height and i`am 47.

Jtm said on 24/Jul/18
apparently he claimed 6'1.5 when he was on jay leno in 1996 but i watched the interview on youtube and he never talked about his height.

Benny said on 21/Jul/18
Connery was 6’2” in his prime (1960-1990). Currently probably 6’0-6’.5”

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Jul/18
I think Connery was a guy who could have woken up at 6ft3

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 28/Jun/18
Connery: 188.3cm
Caine: 187.6cm

James B 171.5cm said on 21/Jun/18
Michael Caine was 6ft1.5 i think.

Could seem taller in Alfie because he was really skinny in those days.

Mister lennon said on 16/Jun/18
Yes. Usually, connery was half an inch or maybe an inch taller than caine.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/Jun/18
Generally Connery looked a tiny bit taller than Caine

marcus said on 15/Jun/18
Just saw a clip of Connery and Michael Caine on Carson. Connery looked a small fraction shorter than Caine, but Caine was the same height as Ed McMahon, listed here at 6'3"

Leno179 said on 12/Jun/18
Solid 6'2, a rare case of a old man but very active, good posture and shape, probably has lost very little in stature(if he did lose anything)

James B 171.5cm said on 11/Jun/18
Anyone seen Russia with Love? He looked 6ft1 range in that film.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Jun/18
Gracian I think all of those are arguable I made up a list like that and all those guys were there

ImTall(6'6) said on 2/Jun/18
Definitely 6'2 maybe 6'2.5"

Gracian said on 16/May/18
Rob, can I argue about a quarter inch in many auctions? Here are my own assumptions:
Club 6'2.25": Sean Connery, Benicio Del Toro, John Cusack, Donald Trump, Hugh Jackman, Samuel L. Jackson, Ryan Reynolds, Gottfried John, David Warner, Graham McTavish, John Newman, M. C. Gainey, Will Poulter, George H. W. Bush and Joe Don Baker
Club 6'1.75": Michael Caine, Paul Walker, Bill Clinton, Sean Kingston, Flo Rida, Hugo Weaving Kevin Kline, Jim Carrey, Matthew Fox, James Earl Jones, Robin Thicke and D'Lo Brown
Rob, do you think that some of these auctions are possible?

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/May/18
Fox could have been 186cm but I tag Caine as 187-188cm and Connery 188-189cm

Jordan87 said on 9/May/18
Danield,

How do you know Connery wore lifts? What's wrong with you?

danield said on 14/Apr/18
sean was about 6ft 1 in his youth, he never was 6ft 2 without lifts. I'm from georgia and here we have great actor named Tengiz Archvadze who was very good friend of sean connery. This actor tells very often that they( he and sean) were same wight, same height and had very similar voice. This actor was 6ft1(184) and about 90kg. so i guess sean was 6ft 1 too.

Mister lennon said on 14/Apr/18
In the most of pictures and videos, sean looke an inch taller than michael, or almost. Between half an inch and one inch. Sometimes, caine could look the same or taller than connery, but its because several factors: posture, camera point of view, etc.
Is the same thing with james fox. Connery is taller in the most of the time, but fox could look the same or taller sometimes.

Connery a solid 6'2 guy and caine and fox about strong 6'1 guys.

kevin5762 said on 13/Apr/18
Click Here just look.. how can you say that connery was taller than michael caine? they have same suit and shoes and their age is also almost same and michael caine looks about inch taller than sean. sean has more athletic build so its hard to see the difference but if you look closely michael is clearly taller. connery was about 6ft1 in his prime

Mister lennon said on 11/Apr/18
I think that peak fox could be a strong 6'1 or weak 6'2 all the way. Between 186-188, i think.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Apr/18
I can see Fox at 186cm but near 6ft2? Not as sure on that one.

Mister lennon said on 8/Apr/18
Yes, rampage. In the russia house, sometimes fox looked the same or even a little bit taller than connery in some scenes. But sean looked taller the most of the time.

Solid 6'2 for connery and strong 6'1 or weak 6'2 for fox.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Apr/18
Hackman really is a tricky one. Generally could go from looking just under to just over 6ft2. That's why I think he should be left alone.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Apr/18
Connery was taller than James Fox

Mister lennon said on 2/Apr/18
Connery was true and solid 6'2. And looked a little bit taller than hackman and the same heigth of desmond lewweyl.
Fox was also 6' 2 and connery looked the same.

joemanila said on 1/Apr/18
sean was tall man, but he never was near 6ft 2. look him with Q(DESMOND) who was listed as 6ft 2 connery was about inch smaller, look at him with gene hackman same situation here, look at him with james fox who was 6ft 1 (the russia house) and james was slightly taller than sean but at that time sean was 60 years old and probably lost some height. I think sean was between 6ft, 6ft 1 in his prime. anyway he was tall man with athletic build long legs big shoulders so he always seemed even taller than he realy was

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Mar/18
He was still looking 6ft1½ range only 10-12 years ago and a decent 6ft2 in the 90's....I'm not convinced he was less than this peak

The Tall Guy said on 22/Mar/18
If you watch Thunderball, Connery walks in barefoot from the beach to the pool alongside his costar Claudine Auger,who appeared identical in height. Auger was a professional model - a tall woman listed as 5'10". She appeared to be wearing two inch heels so those plus her height of 5'10" would make her 6'0" in heels and Connery 6'0" too. He's no more than that, I'm sure.

Tall Sam said on 2/Mar/18
In The Great Train Robbery 6'2" was the most that you could argue for Connery with Donald Sutherland, who looked a good 1.5 inches taller.

Jordan87 said on 26/Feb/18
I'd say Connery and Hackman are certainly in the same ballpark.

AS Far as Hackman goes, in French Connection, as well as the sequel he gave me a 6'3 Impression. Obviously he not 6'3 but he was in fact taller than every single person he shared a scene with in both those films I am pretty sure.

( For the Record Hackman's performance in French Connection 2 when he was getting off the Heroine was amazing, guy is not appreciated enough he is one of the greats).

Far as Connery goes, I do not believe he is over 6'2, but pretty much right there as a Solid 6'2 guy in his day. Constantly looked a bit taller than Caine and Was even taller than Jim Carrey when he was an old man, in his 70's I believe.

Smiles03 said on 11/Feb/18
He's 6'2 and 6'3 when he had hair

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 19/Jan/18
📈: 188.9cm
📉: 184.5cm

Mark said on 16/Jan/18
Caine was 6'1". He was clearly shorter than Connery when they made a film together in 1974.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Jan/18
I think Caine was a weak 6ft2

mister_lennon said on 2/Jan/18
my guesses:

peak beatty: strong 6'1
peak hackman: weak 6'2
peak connery:solid 6'2
peak caine:strong 6'1
and yes, hackman edged out beatty in Bonnie and clyde

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Jan/18
Hackman edged out Warren Beatty by 2cm in Bonnie &Clyde

berta said on 29/Dec/17
saw the 3rd indiana jones movie today agian. i saw 3,5 cm beetween him and weak 184 ford. i guess conerry was maybe 187,5 range by that time. he is a well built man i dont think he had lost more than 0,5 by that time. maybe 188 flat is the best peak listing. 189 is to mutch for him.gene hackman was probably 187,6 peak and caine 187,2

Bruno said on 26/Dec/17
Appeared slightly shorter than Tony Perkins in 74 Murder on the orient express.

Mister lennon said on 20/Dec/17
Caine was a strong 6'1. Probably a weak 6'2 out of bed.

James said on 19/Dec/17
Caine was 6'1". He was shorter than Connery and Hackman.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Dec/17
Yes I do Canson.

I think Caine was a weak 6ft2, Hackman a flat 6ft2 and Connery a strong 6ft2

Mister lennon said on 17/Dec/17
Lord was shorter than hackman. Connery was a hair taller than hackman.
I think:
Lord: weak 6'1
Connery: solid 6'2
Hackman: weak 6'2

Canson said on 16/Dec/17
@Rampage: do you think he would edge Hackman out?

James said on 14/Dec/17
Lord was exactly six foot. With his special shoes he could look 6'1" on that TV series.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Dec/17
Lord might've been 184-185cm at worst but 6ft1 is still reasonable. Probably wore bigger shoes to look 6ft2 range

James said on 26/Nov/17
Jack Lord was six foot.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Nov/17
Rob, he would have been 78 there and he still looked 6ft1 range. I have no doubt he was big 6ft2er in his hey day if not 189cm. Look at him with 6ft1 guys like Jack Lord or Gert Frobe

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Nov/17
Rob, I actually think Connery edges out Carrey in that photo

Mister lennon said on 5/Nov/17
Sorry, rob, but in that picture , connery is taller than carrey.

Scoobydoo said on 4/Nov/17
Connery never was 190 cm barefoot he was a genuine 188 cm in peak , maybe 189 cm in the morning.
Nowadays ... well he is old, who knows?

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Nov/17
Rob, have you looked at grizz's photo?

grizz said on 22/Oct/17
Click Here Next to Jim Carrey (roughly 10 years ago) he still looked taller!

matt hill said on 13/Oct/17
Every inch of 6ft2 in his prime probably around 6ft now at 87 years old and probably the best bond of all time the second best been daniel craig

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 10/Oct/17
Out of bed: 6ft2⅞(190.1cm)
Before bed: 6ft2⅛(188.2cm)



😎

Rory said on 2/Oct/17
How can you tell he is 5ft11 with his carers unless you are or know his carers height ? I doubt he's under 6ft today.

James said on 2/Oct/17
Nope, he is clearly 5'11" in the recent pictures with his carers.

mister_lennon said on 1/Oct/17
he is 6 now

James said on 26/Sep/17
Connery is 5'11" in the latest pictures with his carer.

Cameron said on 20/Sep/17
Why no peak height option? considering he was 6'2" at his peak and is 90 years old, I think it's a given he's lost some height.

Rory said on 19/Sep/17
A classic 6ft2 guy peak and 6ft0.25 today. 1.75 inch loss isn't bad at all for 87. I felt he looked 6'0.5-0.75 with Murray in 2012 but has probably lost another fraction since then.

James said on 8/Sep/17
Caine is exactly six foot now.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Sep/17
Agreed. Caine does look to have lost a bit more. He'd still clear 6ft though

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Sep/17
Caine just got given 184cm. I reckon it's safe to assume that Connery is also around that today but there's not really any point in giving him a current height. He's been absent from the limelight for many years now.

berta said on 31/Aug/17
as most guys here seems to think i agree on 188-188,5 peak. a full 189 seems a little to mutch and even today he still looks 185 cm range maybe 184,5. he have lost barely 4 cm and is almost 90 years old.

James said on 26/Aug/17
Connery was 187 at his peak.

Richardspain said on 25/Aug/17
Between 184-185cm nowadays.

Between 188-189cm young.

He has the same height than Clint Eastwood's height nowadays only difference is Clint Eastwood was 1 cm taller than Sean in peak .

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/Aug/17
I believe that measurement from the 1950 Mr. Universe. He's the tallest guy in that photo...

James said on 14/Aug/17
@James I disagree with you. He is around 1.84 today.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Aug/17
184cm zone today

Mister lennon said on 2/Aug/17
He's clearly still 6.

James said on 1/Aug/17
He's clearly below six foot now.

Mister lennon said on 1/Aug/17
He is 6 now.

James said on 31/Jul/17
Connery is 5'11.5" now.

Mister lennon said on 28/Jul/17
Strong 188 at youth. Today about 184-185.

Aza said on 28/Jul/17
Believe he was a solid 6'2 peak.

RichardSpain said on 27/Jul/17
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Jul/17
190.4cm out of bed


what??? ha ha ha

James said on 27/Jul/17
Connery may have been 187 cm in his youth. He's less than 183 today.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Jul/17
190.4cm out of bed

Mister lennon said on 25/Jul/17
Connery was always 6'2 at his peak.

James said on 25/Jul/17
Connery was 6'1.5" in "Dr No", and six foot by his last film in 2002.

Mark(5'9.5 said on 24/Jul/17
More like 6'2.25" on the dot.

RichardSpain said on 24/Jul/17
Connery was a strong 188 cm ( 6'2 feet)

Costner was a strong 185cm ( 6'1 feet)

Harrison between 183-184cm ( strong 6 feet nearly 6'1 feet)

Canson said on 24/Jul/17
I'd say he's close to Hackman at his peak maybe fraction lower. 6'1.75 and 6'2 for Hackman

James B said on 23/Jul/17
Costner was 6'1 legit

James said on 23/Jul/17
Costner wasn't 6'1". Connery was clearly shorter than Nicol Williamson.

Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 23/Jul/17
187-188 peak

Mister lennon said on 22/Jul/17
Costner was a solid 6'1 guy.
The lifts things is becoming so annoying . Is just trolling.

James B said on 22/Jul/17
Rory said on 21/Jul/17
I've no idea how someone could watch from Russia with love and then come to the conclusion he was below 6ft2. Watching Connery walk through the corridors/airport etc in that film he's basically always the tallest man in the scene. The idea he wore lifts is for the birds too...in many a bond film he was walking on the beach or in his hotel room or swimming visibly barefoot and his profile still looks the same size as when fully dressed in shoes. Just accept the fact he was a solid 6ft 2.


Russia with love is only one film and I just thought he could look in the 6'1.5 range in that movie. Connery looked a legit 6'2 in Dr No though because he was very slim in that film.

James said on 22/Jul/17
He was 6'1.5" at his peak.

Rory said on 21/Jul/17
I've no idea how someone could watch from Russia with love and then come to the conclusion he was below 6ft2. Watching Connery walk through the corridors/airport etc in that film he's basically always the tallest man in the scene. The idea he wore lifts is for the birds too...in many a bond film he was walking on the beach or in his hotel room or swimming visibly barefoot and his profile still looks the same size as when fully dressed in shoes. Just accept the fact he was a solid 6ft 2.

James said on 21/Jul/17
Costner was exactly six feet tall at his peak. Connery probably wore lifts in "The Untouchables" to look slightly taller.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 21/Jul/17
Connery and Hackman in their late 50's were both taller than a 32-year old Kevin Costner who was a yardstick 6ft1.


Some of these comments defy logic...

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 21/Jul/17
6ft peak is a joke.

James said on 21/Jul/17
Fleming was only 5'11" in 1964.

James said on 21/Jul/17
He was made to look taller in the early Bond films with lifts, camera angles, small furniture and small sets.

Dan said on 20/Jul/17
James...you may be right.

Mister lennon...based on what? 6'2" for Connery is a joke to me. Look at the pictures of him standing with the 6'0" Bond creator Ian Fleming. Connery consistently looks not even an inch over him...doesn't even look a half-inch over.

James B said on 20/Jul/17
Saw Russia with love tonight and thought he looked more 6'1.5 in that film.

Rory said on 20/Jul/17
No he had to be a legit 6ft2 peak..watching from Russia with Love he looks a genuinely big man.

James said on 20/Jul/17
Connery was only 6'2" with lifts.

Mister lennon said on 20/Jul/17
6 is a joke for connery.
Nothing less than a solid 6'2 at peak.

Jug said on 19/Jul/17
I don't know if this is accurate but I've heard that the EON tailors measured him at 6'1.5. He was a bit more than two inches shorter than Sutherland in The Great Train Robbery and sometimes Martin Landau and Karl Malden looked taller than him in a film called Meteor. Peter Boyle looked a little taller in Outland. James Fox looked taller in The Russia House. He was noticeably taller than Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones and about the same height as Kevin Costner in The Untouchables. I think he was slightly under 6'2 at peak. He also never had great posture.

Mark(5'9.5") said on 19/Jul/17
Over 188 cm is better.

James said on 18/Jul/17
Sutherland was 6'3" so Connery was six foot in that awful film.

Dan said on 18/Jul/17
even...based on what?? 6'1" is the highest I'd go for Connery...again, easily 3" shorter than the 6'4" Sutherland in "The Great Train Robbery."

even said on 17/Jul/17
six foot two is correct

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/Jul/17
185cm peak is definitely too low

Dan said on 14/Jul/17
Spencer...not even close. Connery is a good three inches shorter than the 6'4" Donald Sutherland in "The Great Train Robbery." 6'1" was his peak.

James said on 13/Jul/17
He was 187 at his peak. Camera angles and smaller sets and furniture were used to make him look taller as Bond.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Jul/17
He did look more 187cm in Never Say Never Again but like you said he was 52. I still stand by 189cm peak

RichardSpain said on 11/Jul/17
Guys ,

Between 188 -189 cm was Connery in peak. I think he was a solid 189 maybe in the morning out of the bed. But 188 cm in the afternon.

Here next to Rowan Atkison (181-182 cm) in the movie "never say never again"

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here

As you can see, Connery doesn't look 189cm next to Rowan but 187 / 188 cm is more credible.

In this movie Connery was 52 years old

Spencer said on 9/Jul/17
189 peak 6'2.5

James B said on 5/Jul/17
Watching Dr no right now. Just looking at him in the film Iam thinking he would have been a great choice to play Bruce Wayne. Does anyone else agree?

James B said on 5/Jul/17
lol even to me 6'2 is not freakishly tall.

6'5 is what I'd call freakishly tall

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Jul/17
Brosnan would edge out Costner and possibly Moore

James said on 4/Jul/17
Brosnan was clearly taller than Moore, and Hackman was taller than Caine.

Richardspain said on 3/Jul/17
Peaks of ours" stars"

Sean Connery: (188.5cm)
Gene Hackman: (187.5cm)
Michael Caine: (188cm)
Roger Moore: (186cm)
Pierce Brosnan: (186cm)
Kevin Costner: (186cm)
Harrison Ford: (184cm)
Christopher Walken: (183.5cm)
Alec Baldwin (181.5cm)


Connery was taller than our friends

Alec was shorter than besides

Moore,Brosnan and Costner same height.

Gene Hackman a bit shorter than Michael Caine.

I think I am sure.

Arch Stanton said on 1/Jul/17
I can see 6'2.5 in the corridor scenes in Goldfinger and Thunderball but never thought he looked a big 6'3.

Richard said on 30/Jun/17
Connery was 6'1.5" but now he's below six foot. Costner was six foot at his peak.

Johan said on 30/Jun/17
5'9"-5'10" for Connery lmao. That makes Christopher Lambert 5'7" tops and Nic Cage 5'8" Max.

Mister_lennon said on 30/Jun/17
5'9 for connery is just trolling.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/Jun/17
6ft2 is not freakishly tall mate

S.J.H said on 29/Jun/17
He could be 6'1 now but few years back he look around 6'1.5

Charlie said on 29/Jun/17
I am a huge James Bond fan and in many of Sean's Bond Films the Female is 2 to 3 inches shorter than him while in heels.I personally have never met a female in my entire life that was over 5'10 in heels. But according to the 6'2 listing here the females in the earlier Bond movies would have to be 5'10 to 5'11 while in heels. We can easily rule out any females reaching 5'10 in heels. 5'6 in heels yes that's believable. This would make Sean Connery 5'9 to 5'10 when he played Bond. I don;t think truly understand exactly how tall 6'2 is. It's freakishly tall.I am 5'10. I am male. In the afternoon i am 5'9 1/4 but when i go outside people are amazed by how tall i am. I saw a guy who was in deed taller than myself. Going by the re-flexion from the window he looked to be 3 inches taller than me. 6'1 is how he appeared. From a distance he stood out like a sore thumb and looked freakishly tall compared to the other males. Sean Connery blended in quite well with his other male co stars. No way was he ever 6'2. Absolutely not. He looked like a 5'9 man when he did James Bond. Today i would say he is 5'7 maybe 5'8.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Jun/17
Sean Connery: 6ft2¼(188.6cm)
Gene Hackman: 6ft2(188.0cm)
Michael Caine: 6ft1¾(187.3cm)
Roger Moore: 6ft1½(186.7cm)
Pierce Brosnan: 6ft1½(186.7cm)
Kevin Costner: 6ft1¼(186.1cm)
Harrison Ford: 6ft0¾(184.8cm)
Christopher Walker: 6ft0½(184.2cm)
Alec Baldwin 5ft11¾(182.3cm)

James said on 23/Jun/17
Costner was 6'0.5" and Connery was 6'1.5" at their peaks.

RichardSpain said on 23/Jun/17
Costner : 185 cm .
Connery: 189cm younger in peak 187cm/188cm in "untouchables"
Harrison: 183cm/184cm in peak

Mimi said on 22/Jun/17
Is he still holding on to this height at age 86? I'm expecting at least an inch of loss.

Ted said on 16/Jun/17
Slightly over 6' 2'' in his 30s.

berta said on 15/Jun/17
at 56 he probably had lost max 0,5 cm because he was same height as carey even 10 yhears back. Withcosnter he looked max 2 m taller. Costner is one of the evidence that he might have been 188 flat and not taller at peak.well either that ore just over it

James said on 2/Jun/17
Connery was 6'1.5" in 1953 and six foot by 2000.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Jun/17
Still looked 187-188cm zone in the 90's-00's and 186cm about 9 years ago (w/h Jim Carey at an AFI event)

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 31/May/17
If Costner was 185/186cm, Connery looked 188/189cm

Leo2001 said on 29/May/17
Legit 6ft2
Taller than 6ft1 Kevin Costner at 56 years old.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here

TheoJ said on 29/May/17
Worked with him on Entrapment in 1998 when he was 68, and he was much bigger and taller than I expected. I was around 185cm and he seemed a little taller, around 186cm. So 188cm peak is right.

movieguy said on 27/May/17
Great photo posted of Landau and Connery. Can't see any height difference though. Both were probably about 6'2''.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/May/17
188/189cm is more plausible than 187/188cm

James said on 24/May/17
Martin Landau was 6'2" at his peak.

AlexMahone said on 20/May/17
In the 1979 movie Meteor, Connery and Martin Landau in some scenes stand face to face. I always thought that Landau was in prime a legit 6'2.5" guy. Landau in the movie is slightly taller than Connery.

Click Here

Landau's posture is always terrible but here stands in great military posture. What do you think Rob?

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 17/May/17
In Never Say Never Again he did look a little shorter than before. He was heavier though

James B said on 17/May/17
Rampage- I saw Dr No a little over 1 year ago on TV and I didn't think he really looked over 6ft2 in that film.

Might have to see it again to refresh my memory but I will say though that I thought he could look 6'1.5 in never say never again

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 16/May/17
I think he could be 184/185cm zone today if measured. Can look like a 6ft guy when walking

msn187 said on 14/May/17
He hansn't at least lost a cm or two in height at his age? That's rather impressive.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/May/17
Goldfinger, Dr. No and You Only Live Twice were times where he could pass for 6ft3. If he was a strong 6ft2 then he could have been 6ft3 out of bed.

James B said on 10/May/17
You could make a case for him looking 6ft3 in Goldfinger. Not saying he was that tall though.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/May/17
James is just a troll....


Look 6ft2 flat is fine for Connery aswell but nothing less. I just think it's more likely he measured a bit over it rather than under...just like Caine is also entitled to a 6ft2 listing but he may have been a little shy of it

mister_lennon said on 4/May/17
The lifts thing is just crap, as always.
connery was a true and strong 6'2.

AlexMahone said on 4/May/17
James wants again his 5 minutes fame...

The lift wearer talk is insane...

Rory said on 3/May/17
Why would a 6ft 2 guy or even accepting for a minute you're right and that he was 6ft 1.5...why would a 6ft 1.5 guy(about the equivalent of 6ft 3.25 today compared to then) need to wear lifts or indeed need the furniture shrinked down ? Very odd.

James said on 3/May/17
Connery was wearing lifts in "Dr No", and the furniture and sets were smaller than they would be in reality. Connery's peak height was 6'1.5".

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/May/17
He looked abut 6ft3 w/h Jack Lord. Absolute nothing below 188-188.5cm at night in 1962

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 28/Apr/17
Maybe at a push he could be near 185cm today.

Richardspain said on 28/Apr/17
He is tall. I think he is a strong 185cm no less, with footwear about 187cm.

Similar Roger Moore's height but a bit shorter than Connery.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 27/Apr/17
Peak: 6ft2¼(188.6cm)
Today: 6ft0½(184.2cm)

James said on 27/Apr/17
He was 71 or 72 when his last film "The League of Gentlemen" was filmed in 2002.