Add a Comment2236 comments
Average Guess (291 Votes)
6ft 2.03in (188cm)
6ft 2.03in (188cm)
JJF said on 5/May/15
@Rampage(-_-_-)Clover - you didn't read my post it seems.
I said that back in the 50's they did not bother with barefoot measurements.
Of course THESE DAYS BBuilders are measured barefoot.
@Rampage(-_-_-)Clover - you didn't read my post it seems.
I said that back in the 50's they did not bother with barefoot measurements.
Of course THESE DAYS BBuilders are measured barefoot.
184.3cm (Night) said on 4/May/15
So at 82 years old he looks 184cm 6'0.5 and yet people believe he was only 185-186 cm in his prime??? Laughable.
He looked 185-186 in his 60's and taller when younger let it sink it for the downgraders.
So at 82 years old he looks 184cm 6'0.5 and yet people believe he was only 185-186 cm in his prime??? Laughable.
He looked 185-186 in his 60's and taller when younger let it sink it for the downgraders.
James B said on 1/May/15
In Goldfinger 6'3 at times did not seem hard to imagine for Connery
In Goldfinger 6'3 at times did not seem hard to imagine for Connery
Z185.8 said on 26/Apr/15
Very similar height to prime Moore... definitely not the tallest Bond, Lazenby or Dalton would be the tallest so far...
Sean looks about 184cm more recently... looks about the same with ronaldinho as Frank Lampard does...
Connery and Ronaldinho
Click Here
Lampard and Ronaldinho
Click Here
Very similar height to prime Moore... definitely not the tallest Bond, Lazenby or Dalton would be the tallest so far...
Sean looks about 184cm more recently... looks about the same with ronaldinho as Frank Lampard does...
Connery and Ronaldinho
Click Here
Lampard and Ronaldinho
Click Here
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Apr/15
@JJF: bodybuilders are measured barefoot.
@JJF: bodybuilders are measured barefoot.
JJF said on 15/Apr/15
With all the pics of him beside 6-footers I think it's safe to assume Connery was somewhere between 186-187 at the most during his 'peak'
That would also make sense as he was measured at 6' 2.4" WITH SHOES in his bodybuilding days (this was 1950's, nobody was that bothered with exact barefoot measurements)
With all the pics of him beside 6-footers I think it's safe to assume Connery was somewhere between 186-187 at the most during his 'peak'
That would also make sense as he was measured at 6' 2.4" WITH SHOES in his bodybuilding days (this was 1950's, nobody was that bothered with exact barefoot measurements)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/Apr/15
I'd easily put a 30-year old Connery in there Affleck, Bana, Jackman and Cusack
I'd easily put a 30-year old Connery in there Affleck, Bana, Jackman and Cusack
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Apr/15
Connery looks barely shorter than Murray!
Connery looks barely shorter than Murray!
Arch Stanton said on 6/Apr/15
Joe says on 31/Jan/15
Some claimed Connery was 6'3", which I do not believe, Connery was a bodybuilder for a while, I think he was 6'2.5" in his youth, and while he was Bond he was 6'2" without shoes,
You do realise he was only about 31 or 32 when they shot Dr. No? The same age as I am now. I still consider myself a young man and I can assure you I've not lost height yet, well at least the last time I checked anyway!
Joe says on 31/Jan/15
Some claimed Connery was 6'3", which I do not believe, Connery was a bodybuilder for a while, I think he was 6'2.5" in his youth, and while he was Bond he was 6'2" without shoes,
You do realise he was only about 31 or 32 when they shot Dr. No? The same age as I am now. I still consider myself a young man and I can assure you I've not lost height yet, well at least the last time I checked anyway!
Judd said on 31/Mar/15
yeah, i think maybe 6'0.5" is the best choice from those pictures, however you need to consider that at first Connery and Murray have both similar shoes, and also that Connery has very bad posture...i think (looking at his shoulder's level) he would edge out an honest 6' guy and if standing at his tallest he would be closer to 185 cms...
yeah, i think maybe 6'0.5" is the best choice from those pictures, however you need to consider that at first Connery and Murray have both similar shoes, and also that Connery has very bad posture...i think (looking at his shoulder's level) he would edge out an honest 6' guy and if standing at his tallest he would be closer to 185 cms...
184.3cm said on 26/Mar/15
Looks more 184cm next to Andy Murray in that shot where they shake hands. At 82 as well..no doubt in my mind he was 6'2 at peak.
Looks more 184cm next to Andy Murray in that shot where they shake hands. At 82 as well..no doubt in my mind he was 6'2 at peak.
Judd said on 25/Mar/15
rob, recently he met Andy Murray (6'2") and considering that they had similar shoes, he didn't look much shorter than Andy... Click Here
actually i don't think he's more than 3 cms shorter than Andy and of Andy is 187,5 cms then Sean would be in the 185 cms zone, maybe 6'0.75"...[also with Alex Ferguson, who might be 5'10" today, he does look in the 6'1 zone]
what do you think, personally about his current height?
Editor Rob
rob, recently he met Andy Murray (6'2") and considering that they had similar shoes, he didn't look much shorter than Andy... Click Here
actually i don't think he's more than 3 cms shorter than Andy and of Andy is 187,5 cms then Sean would be in the 185 cms zone, maybe 6'0.75"...[also with Alex Ferguson, who might be 5'10" today, he does look in the 6'1 zone]
what do you think, personally about his current height?
Editor Rob he still would clear 6ft I think if measured, how much though I'm not sure, I wouldn't go as high as 185 for him.
Judd said on 25/Mar/15
rob i agree with the 6'2" peak listing, but why you don't fill a current height of him?
Editor Rob
rob i agree with the 6'2" peak listing, but why you don't fill a current height of him?
Editor Rob he's essentially retired from movies and not really much in the limelight now.
berta said on 4/Mar/15
very sttrong 6¨2 a waek 189
very sttrong 6¨2 a waek 189
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/Mar/15
187cm is too low for his peak. He was still looking 188-189cm in his 50's and 60's. Watch The Untouchables, Last Crusade and The Rock.
187cm is too low for his peak. He was still looking 188-189cm in his 50's and 60's. Watch The Untouchables, Last Crusade and The Rock.
Judd said on 22/Feb/15
However, time ago i have read that he was measured at 187 cms when he played JB...
I actually don't believe that claiming!
However, time ago i have read that he was measured at 187 cms when he played JB...
I actually don't believe that claiming!
2toes said on 21/Feb/15
He looks very tall in his first movies, a very strong 6'2", almost 6'2.5".
He looks very tall in his first movies, a very strong 6'2", almost 6'2.5".
Jake said on 6/Feb/15
Joe, you dont lose height until 40 , IF that. Most people START at around 50ish, thats when they usually lose a quarter inch or something like that. After 55-60 is when you lose .5 inches- 1 inch and so on. What do you mean 6'2.5 in his ''youth''? You think you drop half an inch from 18 to 35? Seriously? someone as fit and healthy and robust as him lost .5 inches???!!! Come on, that guy was 6'2.25 out of bed and around 6'1.5 by night. still 6'2, almost 6'3 with shoes. My dad met him and my dad was 6'2.5 exactly (middayish)
Joe, you dont lose height until 40 , IF that. Most people START at around 50ish, thats when they usually lose a quarter inch or something like that. After 55-60 is when you lose .5 inches- 1 inch and so on. What do you mean 6'2.5 in his ''youth''? You think you drop half an inch from 18 to 35? Seriously? someone as fit and healthy and robust as him lost .5 inches???!!! Come on, that guy was 6'2.25 out of bed and around 6'1.5 by night. still 6'2, almost 6'3 with shoes. My dad met him and my dad was 6'2.5 exactly (middayish)
Joe said on 31/Jan/15
Some claimed Connery was 6'3", which I do not believe, Connery was a bodybuilder for a while, I think he was 6'2.5" in his youth, and while he was Bond he was 6'2" without shoes, I think he maintained that height into his 50s, but he is probably much shorter these days.
Some claimed Connery was 6'3", which I do not believe, Connery was a bodybuilder for a while, I think he was 6'2.5" in his youth, and while he was Bond he was 6'2" without shoes, I think he maintained that height into his 50s, but he is probably much shorter these days.
Arch Stanton said on 29/Jan/15
@Filmfan G image the photo of Moore with Niven and Peck, he looks almost 6'4" LOL.
@Filmfan G image the photo of Moore with Niven and Peck, he looks almost 6'4" LOL.
jtm said on 12/Jan/15
he was taller but i doubt caine was 6'2.
he was taller but i doubt caine was 6'2.
Dan said on 12/Jan/15
In the film "The Man Who Would Be King" Michael Caine is definitely taller than Connery.
In the film "The Man Who Would Be King" Michael Caine is definitely taller than Connery.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Jan/15
Rob, is it still worth mentioning that measurement at the top?
Editor Rob
Rob, is it still worth mentioning that measurement at the top?
Editor Rob I don't know which book or source it is supposed to have been from, if someone ever can find it I of course would add the mention.
Judd said on 10/Jan/15
I think 6'2" as peak height if the fairest choice.
In the january of 1989 he was, when he directed with Michael Caine the academy awards ceremony, as tall as Kevin Kline, who was for sure a genuine 6'1.5" guy...
Sean was 58-59 in that period, so i guess he hadn't still lost too much, not more than 0,5" for sure...they were both 6'1.5" in 1989.
Click Here
I think 6'2" as peak height if the fairest choice.
In the january of 1989 he was, when he directed with Michael Caine the academy awards ceremony, as tall as Kevin Kline, who was for sure a genuine 6'1.5" guy...
Sean was 58-59 in that period, so i guess he hadn't still lost too much, not more than 0,5" for sure...they were both 6'1.5" in 1989.
Click Here
Mario said on 7/Jan/15
Measured at 6 ft 2.4 in his early 20s, was probably still close to that height till the late 90s, early 2000s. Nowedays he might have dipped below 6 ft 1.
Editor Rob
Measured at 6 ft 2.4 in his early 20s, was probably still close to that height till the late 90s, early 2000s. Nowedays he might have dipped below 6 ft 1.
Editor Rob that's still an unknown, nobody seems to have been able to tell when/where...
But the 6ft 2 (without any mention of a half) is down on his early acting profiles...
But the 6ft 2 (without any mention of a half) is down on his early acting profiles...
Lenad 5 ft 9.75in said on 1/Jan/15
187-188 peak. 184-185 now
187-188 peak. 184-185 now
Mike said on 14/Dec/14
184-185 now and 188-189 peak.
184-185 now and 188-189 peak.
AlexMahone said on 14/Dec/14
No Mike, I absolutely disagree. Most of the pictures from Connery and Murray where they stand together or face to face are very bad for a correct comparison.
Murray talks about his height in his Twitter (6'1.5 - 187cm) but I can' believe that because his coach Ivan Lendl (former World Number One and great tennis player) is 6'2 (188cm) and I don't believe it that he shrunk for age 54 and Murray is slightly taller.
I gave Murray minimum 6'2.25 (about 189cm) and comparison with Connery, seems to me that Sean is now 6'1 (185cm). He shrunk but he's 84 years old now...
No Mike, I absolutely disagree. Most of the pictures from Connery and Murray where they stand together or face to face are very bad for a correct comparison.
Murray talks about his height in his Twitter (6'1.5 - 187cm) but I can' believe that because his coach Ivan Lendl (former World Number One and great tennis player) is 6'2 (188cm) and I don't believe it that he shrunk for age 54 and Murray is slightly taller.
I gave Murray minimum 6'2.25 (about 189cm) and comparison with Connery, seems to me that Sean is now 6'1 (185cm). He shrunk but he's 84 years old now...
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Dec/14
185cm today is fair.
185cm today is fair.
Mike said on 11/Dec/14
Maybe 6ft 1 but no more than that, and most likely 184.
Maybe 6ft 1 but no more than that, and most likely 184.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Dec/14
@Mike: In one or 2 pics he stands a little better. I'll admit that he does walk around shorter but if he stood for a measurement I'm confident he'd still be around 6ft1
@Mike: In one or 2 pics he stands a little better. I'll admit that he does walk around shorter but if he stood for a measurement I'm confident he'd still be around 6ft1
Mike said on 3/Dec/14
Really? He looked more 6ft range in some of them!
Really? He looked more 6ft range in some of them!
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/Dec/14
Looked 186-187cm beside Andy Murray
Looked 186-187cm beside Andy Murray
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/Nov/14
Connery hovered around the 6ft2 mark well into the 90's...
Connery hovered around the 6ft2 mark well into the 90's...
Joe said on 25/Nov/14
Sean was definitely 6'2" in his prime, not sure about today, but he was and still is the best James Bond. I grew up in a time where Roger Moore was Bond, Connery was the best and still is the best Bond. Apparently the producers saw Connery in Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan, but nothing compares to the original.
Sean was definitely 6'2" in his prime, not sure about today, but he was and still is the best James Bond. I grew up in a time where Roger Moore was Bond, Connery was the best and still is the best Bond. Apparently the producers saw Connery in Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan, but nothing compares to the original.
Sam said on 24/Nov/14
Haven't seen it but is The Offence really better than The Hill, Arch? That's my favorite underrated Connery film...not a huge stretch for him in that performance I guess by a really solid, good movie.
Haven't seen it but is The Offence really better than The Hill, Arch? That's my favorite underrated Connery film...not a huge stretch for him in that performance I guess by a really solid, good movie.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Nov/14
The Offence I reckon was his greatest performance (that I've seen anyway).
The Offence I reckon was his greatest performance (that I've seen anyway).
Arch Stanton said on 21/Nov/14
It's British spelling The Offence actually.
It's British spelling The Offence actually.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Nov/14
Rob can you add a photo and films like Marnie, The Offense, Murder on the Orient Express, The Man Who Would be King, Highlander, The Hunt for Red October and Entrapment. The Offense is one of the best movies of his I've seen.
Rob can you add a photo and films like Marnie, The Offense, Murder on the Orient Express, The Man Who Would be King, Highlander, The Hunt for Red October and Entrapment. The Offense is one of the best movies of his I've seen.
Luc said on 19/Nov/14
today 1.86
today 1.86
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/Nov/14
Watching The Rock and he's easily got 2-3in on Nicholas Cage who I still wouldn't argue below 6ft. That and he has 1-1½in on 6ft1-6ft2 Michael Bay.
Watching The Rock and he's easily got 2-3in on Nicholas Cage who I still wouldn't argue below 6ft. That and he has 1-1½in on 6ft1-6ft2 Michael Bay.
Joe said on 14/Nov/14
I think Sean Connery was 6'2" while he portrayed James Bond, he might have been 6'2.5" in the morning. He definitely lost height as he aged. I think he was about 6'1" when was in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. He was only slightly taller than his co-star Harrison Ford, who I would guess was around 6'0.5" in his prime.
I think Sean Connery was 6'2" while he portrayed James Bond, he might have been 6'2.5" in the morning. He definitely lost height as he aged. I think he was about 6'1" when was in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. He was only slightly taller than his co-star Harrison Ford, who I would guess was around 6'0.5" in his prime.
Judd said on 13/Nov/14
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 30/Oct/14
-_-_-(PEAKS)-_-_-/
Michael Caine - 6ft1¾(187cm)
Sean Connery - 6ft2¼(189cm)
Morgan Freeman - 6ft2¾(190cm)
in my opinion:
Michael Caine - 6'1.75-2"
Sean Connery - 6'2"
Morgan Freeman - 6'2.5"
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 30/Oct/14
-_-_-(PEAKS)-_-_-/
Michael Caine - 6ft1¾(187cm)
Sean Connery - 6ft2¼(189cm)
Morgan Freeman - 6ft2¾(190cm)
in my opinion:
Michael Caine - 6'1.75-2"
Sean Connery - 6'2"
Morgan Freeman - 6'2.5"
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Oct/14
-_-_-(PEAKS)-_-_-/
Michael Caine - 6ft1¾(187cm)
Sean Connery - 6ft2¼(189cm)
Morgan Freeman - 6ft2¾(190cm)
-_-_-(PEAKS)-_-_-/
Michael Caine - 6ft1¾(187cm)
Sean Connery - 6ft2¼(189cm)
Morgan Freeman - 6ft2¾(190cm)
pedriscovery said on 28/Oct/14
If you look the film outbreak un a final scene face to face final sutherland AMD morgan freema .sutherland is two inches mimimum more tal that hem.so freeman hace the same range of connery this film is about 1994
If you look the film outbreak un a final scene face to face final sutherland AMD morgan freema .sutherland is two inches mimimum more tal that hem.so freeman hace the same range of connery this film is about 1994
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Oct/14
Connery for the most part edged out Caine by 1-2cm
Connery for the most part edged out Caine by 1-2cm
Sam said on 23/Oct/14
Back in The Man Who Would Be King time, Connery and Michael Caine were very similar in height, more mm than cm between them. Although Sean is only a few years older, I think the pictures of them together show Connery started losing height a little earlier than Caine.
Click Here
Back in The Man Who Would Be King time, Connery and Michael Caine were very similar in height, more mm than cm between them. Although Sean is only a few years older, I think the pictures of them together show Connery started losing height a little earlier than Caine.
Click Here
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Oct/14
189cm peak
189cm peak
Arch Stanton said on 22/Oct/14
Sure Ytr and Donald Sutherland was 6'5" and Clint Eastwood 6'5.5".
Sure Ytr and Donald Sutherland was 6'5" and Clint Eastwood 6'5.5".
Henrik said on 22/Oct/14
6'2" peak, not 6'3". He's more like a flat 6' today which you can see on his long legs that make his torso look very out of proportion. He's gotten the "Clint syndrome".
6'2" peak, not 6'3". He's more like a flat 6' today which you can see on his long legs that make his torso look very out of proportion. He's gotten the "Clint syndrome".
mike said on 22/Oct/14
I doubt he measures over 6ft 1. 185 is his max today.
I doubt he measures over 6ft 1. 185 is his max today.
Ytr said on 20/Oct/14
He was 6 foot 3 at peake today 6 foot 1 1/2
He was 6 foot 3 at peake today 6 foot 1 1/2
Judd said on 11/Oct/14
He' a perfect example of a 6'2" guy when he portrayed James Bond...
Today 6'0.5-1" is likely, but I didn't see much recent pictures of him...
He' a perfect example of a 6'2" guy when he portrayed James Bond...
Today 6'0.5-1" is likely, but I didn't see much recent pictures of him...
grizz said on 5/Oct/14
Rob, was Connery still 6ft2 in Indiana Jones? He seems considerably taller than 6'0.75 Ford back then.
Rob, was Connery still 6ft2 in Indiana Jones? He seems considerably taller than 6'0.75 Ford back then.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Oct/14
6ft2¼-6ft2½ peak, 6ft1-6ft1¼ now. That works out at just over 1in loss...
6ft2¼-6ft2½ peak, 6ft1-6ft1¼ now. That works out at just over 1in loss...
mike said on 2/Oct/14
Peak: 6ft 2-2.25in 188-189 cm
Today: 6ft 0.5-0.75in 184-185 cm
Peak: 6ft 2-2.25in 188-189 cm
Today: 6ft 0.5-0.75in 184-185 cm
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Oct/14
More 6ft1.5/187cm in his 70s...
More 6ft1.5/187cm in his 70s...
mike said on 25/Sep/14
Caine had to be closer to 6ft 1.5 Connery always seemed to edged him out even at the Oscars in 1988 he looked fraction taller than him where he would've been 58 at the time. I don't think he was 6ft 1.5 either maybe he was measured at that while leaning a bit? although he did looks 2 inches shorter Donald Sutherland...
Caine had to be closer to 6ft 1.5 Connery always seemed to edged him out even at the Oscars in 1988 he looked fraction taller than him where he would've been 58 at the time. I don't think he was 6ft 1.5 either maybe he was measured at that while leaning a bit? although he did looks 2 inches shorter Donald Sutherland...
Martin said on 24/Sep/14
Can someone explain this picture. Joseph Wiseman and Sean Connery is almost identically in height. Wiseman is listed on the internet as 183cm. There is some shoe-difference in the picture, but not much. This must be proof that Sean Connery was probably around 187cm at peak. Click Here
Can someone explain this picture. Joseph Wiseman and Sean Connery is almost identically in height. Wiseman is listed on the internet as 183cm. There is some shoe-difference in the picture, but not much. This must be proof that Sean Connery was probably around 187cm at peak. Click Here
James B said on 11/Sep/14
188cm peak and 187cm by late 1970s
188cm peak and 187cm by late 1970s
Dovahkiin said on 6/Sep/14
189cm in shoes, 187cm barefoot peak
189cm in shoes, 187cm barefoot peak
mike said on 18/Aug/14
Connery: 6ft2.25in 189 cm
Caine: 6ft 1.75in 187 cm
Connery: 6ft2.25in 189 cm
Caine: 6ft 1.75in 187 cm
BorkLaser said on 14/Aug/14
Lots of sources seem to point at 189 cm for peak height. Nowadays 6'0" doesn't seem to be off at all
Lots of sources seem to point at 189 cm for peak height. Nowadays 6'0" doesn't seem to be off at all
James B said on 6/Aug/14
6'2 seems okay for his peak. In never say never again he might have been 6'1.5. If you look at him compared to pat roach or Rowan Atkinson in that film I don't think he looked a full 6'2.
Rob do you think Connery was likely no taller than 6'1.5 in 1983 when that film came out?
6'2 seems okay for his peak. In never say never again he might have been 6'1.5. If you look at him compared to pat roach or Rowan Atkinson in that film I don't think he looked a full 6'2.
Rob do you think Connery was likely no taller than 6'1.5 in 1983 when that film came out?
SaveUsY2J said on 3/Aug/14
Might be as low as 6'0" nowadays, he is turning 84 later this month. Don't doubt 6'2 peak.
Might be as low as 6'0" nowadays, he is turning 84 later this month. Don't doubt 6'2 peak.
Henrik said on 4/Jul/14
Arch Stanton, we have to remember that he was always a heavy smoker. The nasty habit tends to do that to you.
Arch Stanton, we have to remember that he was always a heavy smoker. The nasty habit tends to do that to you.
Henrik said on 27/Jun/14
Connery said 6'1.5" himself as well, did he not? He could look a genuine 6'2" at times, but he didn't next to 6'4" Bernie Casey in Never Say Never Again.
Connery said 6'1.5" himself as well, did he not? He could look a genuine 6'2" at times, but he didn't next to 6'4" Bernie Casey in Never Say Never Again.
Dave618 said on 21/Jun/14
It amuses me that even in the face of valid info, some people still refuse to change their opinions. This sense of arrogance could in fact be why the world is so F'd up. Eon released the Bond heights. Eon is the company that produced the Bond films. Their tailors measured each and every Bond actor.
Conner: six feet one and one half inch.
Lazenby: six feet one and one half inch
Moore: Six feet one
Dalton Six feet two
Brosnan: Six feet one
They didn't list Craig, for some reason.
Maybe Connery is an out of bed 6'2" and dips a half an inch during the day. That is my exact height by the way. Or maybe he is 6'1 and 1/2 out of bed and was measured early in the AM. Who knows?
But please, let this end the debate of who the tallest Bond was. It is Timothy Dalton. Connery is most likely a weak 6'2" and let's leave it at that. Really, i trust EON over anyone else on this site. They, you know, actually MEASURED him.
It amuses me that even in the face of valid info, some people still refuse to change their opinions. This sense of arrogance could in fact be why the world is so F'd up. Eon released the Bond heights. Eon is the company that produced the Bond films. Their tailors measured each and every Bond actor.
Conner: six feet one and one half inch.
Lazenby: six feet one and one half inch
Moore: Six feet one
Dalton Six feet two
Brosnan: Six feet one
They didn't list Craig, for some reason.
Maybe Connery is an out of bed 6'2" and dips a half an inch during the day. That is my exact height by the way. Or maybe he is 6'1 and 1/2 out of bed and was measured early in the AM. Who knows?
But please, let this end the debate of who the tallest Bond was. It is Timothy Dalton. Connery is most likely a weak 6'2" and let's leave it at that. Really, i trust EON over anyone else on this site. They, you know, actually MEASURED him.
mike said on 10/Jun/14
6ft 2-6ft 3 (188-191 cm ) peak 6ft 0.5-6ft 1.5 (184-187 cm) today.
6ft 2-6ft 3 (188-191 cm ) peak 6ft 0.5-6ft 1.5 (184-187 cm) today.
Arch Stanton said on 2/Jun/14
Also when being surveyed in The Anderson Tapes one observer estimates him as Male. Caucasian and 6 ft 3!
Also when being surveyed in The Anderson Tapes one observer estimates him as Male. Caucasian and 6 ft 3!
Arch Stanton said on 2/Jun/14
He aged a huge amount between 1962 and 1972, in the Anderson Tapes he looks almost old enough to be the father of himself in Dr. No and looks more in his 50s than 40s. In a dressing gown barefoot in the Anderson Tapes, he had to have been around this, but I honestly can't see 189 or 190.
He aged a huge amount between 1962 and 1972, in the Anderson Tapes he looks almost old enough to be the father of himself in Dr. No and looks more in his 50s than 40s. In a dressing gown barefoot in the Anderson Tapes, he had to have been around this, but I honestly can't see 189 or 190.
avi said on 24/May/14
@Rob
Yeah next to Atkinson he looked under 6'2. Atkinson at 5'11.5 is possible and Connery 6'1.5 -.75 is possible too.
@Rob
Yeah next to Atkinson he looked under 6'2. Atkinson at 5'11.5 is possible and Connery 6'1.5 -.75 is possible too.
berta said on 20/May/14
peak 189 now about 185-186
peak 189 now about 185-186
avi said on 3/May/14
@Rob
This seems fair. Maybe 6'2.25 peak.
@Rob
This seems fair. Maybe 6'2.25 peak.
BoboAshanty said on 1/May/14
looks (184-185cm) nowadays. He hasn't lost much
looks (184-185cm) nowadays. He hasn't lost much
Connor 184.5-185cm said on 19/Apr/14
So Rob you think Rowan is 182cm?, you currently have him at 181cm on the site, he definetly does look 6ft in shoes though id say.
Editor Rob
So Rob you think Rowan is 182cm?, you currently have him at 181cm on the site, he definetly does look 6ft in shoes though id say.
Editor Rob at one point I thought 182 on here, then I looked at him again and thought maybe 181 range
Connor 184.5-185cm said on 19/Apr/14
Rob in Never say never again, Thunderball remake Rowan Atkinson was in that film he looked 6ft with Sean Connery do you think Rowan was a 6 footer back in the 80s?
Editor Rob
Rob in Never say never again, Thunderball remake Rowan Atkinson was in that film he looked 6ft with Sean Connery do you think Rowan was a 6 footer back in the 80s?
Editor Rob not seen it for a long time, I am not convinced Rowan really was 6ft flat, a bit shy of that I still would guess
James B said on 25/Mar/14
Do you think rob 6'1 1/2 is unlikely for his peak?
Do you think rob 6'1 1/2 is unlikely for his peak?
Henrik said on 20/Mar/14
Indeed, Jake. Flaming was supposedly angered at first because of thinking that Connery was too robust.
Indeed, Jake. Flaming was supposedly angered at first because of thinking that Connery was too robust.
James B said on 15/Mar/14
In Russia with love looked 186cm
In Russia with love looked 186cm
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Mar/14
He was still looking 186-187cm a few years ago. No doubt a 188-189cm range guy in his 20s-30s. For his generation he technically a giant.
He was still looking 186-187cm a few years ago. No doubt a 188-189cm range guy in his 20s-30s. For his generation he technically a giant.
gearjammer said on 2/Mar/14
Sean Connery was 6'2" in shoes when played 007 small head made him look taller' in 2010 no more then 6'00" my dad stood next to sean connery in 1974 dad was just bit taller at 6'2"
Sean Connery was 6'2" in shoes when played 007 small head made him look taller' in 2010 no more then 6'00" my dad stood next to sean connery in 1974 dad was just bit taller at 6'2"
JAJ said on 15/Feb/14
6'1" to 6'1,5" is fair for him when he was younger.
6'1" to 6'1,5" is fair for him when he was younger.
Mark said on 24/Jan/14
Yes, Dave, I seem to recall reading that from the Bond tailors. Well, Connery was/is a pretty sturdy 6'1.5 guy. As an aside, and in my opinion, those Bond suits were best from the first 2 movies. All 70's suits should have been burned.
Yes, Dave, I seem to recall reading that from the Bond tailors. Well, Connery was/is a pretty sturdy 6'1.5 guy. As an aside, and in my opinion, those Bond suits were best from the first 2 movies. All 70's suits should have been burned.
Dave618 said on 23/Jan/14
I read a thing from the Eon tailors--Eon was the company that produced the Bond films, and the tailors were in charge of making the various Bond's suits. They listed Dalton as the tallest 007 at an even 6'2". Connery and Lazenby were 6'1 and 1/2 inches, and Moore and Brosnan were 6'1" even. They didn't list Craig. SInce these dudes were measuring the actors for their various suits, I imagine this is pretty accurate. I believe Connery is 6'2" out of bed, and dips to 6'1 and 1/2 after a while. The 6'2" and 1/2 measurement from his bodybuilding days was probably in shoes.
I read a thing from the Eon tailors--Eon was the company that produced the Bond films, and the tailors were in charge of making the various Bond's suits. They listed Dalton as the tallest 007 at an even 6'2". Connery and Lazenby were 6'1 and 1/2 inches, and Moore and Brosnan were 6'1" even. They didn't list Craig. SInce these dudes were measuring the actors for their various suits, I imagine this is pretty accurate. I believe Connery is 6'2" out of bed, and dips to 6'1 and 1/2 after a while. The 6'2" and 1/2 measurement from his bodybuilding days was probably in shoes.
Mark said on 22/Jan/14
...Granted, I see some sagging skin in Never Say Never Again (not abundantly so, just normal for a 53 year old guy), but to me, Connery looks quite lean. I know a line in the movie says he's 190, but whether or not it's accurate, I don't see him as heavier than any previous Bond outting. He certainly looks fit. As for my 201 figure, I'm just going by an actual qoute of his from the late 60's. Interestly, I just cught an old Battle of The Network Stars ('77) 2 nights ago, where Patrick Duffy was listed as 183. To my knowledge, Duffy was/is 6'2.5. But, "he" was lifting weights alot in '77. So, if Connery really was 201, the guy was maybe not buff in modern terms, but solid.
...Granted, I see some sagging skin in Never Say Never Again (not abundantly so, just normal for a 53 year old guy), but to me, Connery looks quite lean. I know a line in the movie says he's 190, but whether or not it's accurate, I don't see him as heavier than any previous Bond outting. He certainly looks fit. As for my 201 figure, I'm just going by an actual qoute of his from the late 60's. Interestly, I just cught an old Battle of The Network Stars ('77) 2 nights ago, where Patrick Duffy was listed as 183. To my knowledge, Duffy was/is 6'2.5. But, "he" was lifting weights alot in '77. So, if Connery really was 201, the guy was maybe not buff in modern terms, but solid.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Jan/14
Rampage watch Last Vegas, Freeman does look near 6'3 in it.
Rampage watch Last Vegas, Freeman does look near 6'3 in it.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Jan/14
Connery was described as 190 pounds in Never Say Never when he looked way heavier than he did in the early 60s. I've read 176 or 8 pounds for him in early Bond which seems lower than you'd expect but he was pretty slim. Never Say Never Again though no way was he under 200 pounds!!
Connery was described as 190 pounds in Never Say Never when he looked way heavier than he did in the early 60s. I've read 176 or 8 pounds for him in early Bond which seems lower than you'd expect but he was pretty slim. Never Say Never Again though no way was he under 200 pounds!!
Mark said on 20/Jan/14
Maybe this has been covered, but I read an interview from way back where Connery, himself, described his weight for his latter 60's Bond movies as around 201 pounds. You can't be a 200 pounder, profess that swimming and occasional football and golfing is all you did for exercise, have no detectable bodyfat with your shirt off and not have some height to you. Granted, he had/has a sturdy frame. And though he may have weight trained years earlier, I've read no comments about doing that during his Bond years. Again, he had to have had some substatial height on him to carry 200 that well in, say, Thunderball. I used to think 6'1 plus. Now I'm wondering if 6'2 plus is more accurate.
Maybe this has been covered, but I read an interview from way back where Connery, himself, described his weight for his latter 60's Bond movies as around 201 pounds. You can't be a 200 pounder, profess that swimming and occasional football and golfing is all you did for exercise, have no detectable bodyfat with your shirt off and not have some height to you. Granted, he had/has a sturdy frame. And though he may have weight trained years earlier, I've read no comments about doing that during his Bond years. Again, he had to have had some substatial height on him to carry 200 that well in, say, Thunderball. I used to think 6'1 plus. Now I'm wondering if 6'2 plus is more accurate.
James B said on 20/Jan/14
188cm peak. No more
188cm peak. No more
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Jan/14
Peak
6ft3/191cm out of bed
6ft3/191cm early morning
6ft2.75/190cm morning
6ft2.75/190cm lunchtime
6ft2.5/189cm afternoon
6ft2.5/189cm evening
6ft2.25/189cm night
6ft2.25/189cm before bed
Today
6ft1.75/187cm out of bed
6ft1.75/187cm early morning
6ft1.5/187cm morning
6ft1.5/187cm lunchtime
6ft1.25/186cm afternoon
6ft1.25/186cm evening
6ft1/185cm night
6ft1/185cm before bed
So, that's about 1-1.5in loss which is impressive for a guy pushing 84
Peak
6ft3/191cm out of bed
6ft3/191cm early morning
6ft2.75/190cm morning
6ft2.75/190cm lunchtime
6ft2.5/189cm afternoon
6ft2.5/189cm evening
6ft2.25/189cm night
6ft2.25/189cm before bed
Today
6ft1.75/187cm out of bed
6ft1.75/187cm early morning
6ft1.5/187cm morning
6ft1.5/187cm lunchtime
6ft1.25/186cm afternoon
6ft1.25/186cm evening
6ft1/185cm night
6ft1/185cm before bed
So, that's about 1-1.5in loss which is impressive for a guy pushing 84
berta said on 13/Jan/14
peak height weak 189
peak height weak 189
James said on 12/Jan/14
187cm in never say never again
187cm in never say never again
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Jan/14
@Arch: Freeman looks nowhere near 6ft3 today. He barely edged out Christian Bale. In his prime he could definitely look near it, though. Maybe 189-190cm in his day. 188cm max now though.
188-189cm peak for Connery. Still looked a strong 6ft2 in The Hunt For Red October aged 60 opposite a young Alec Baldwin and he was still looking 186-187cm just a few years ago, so likely is 6ft1ish now.
@Arch: Freeman looks nowhere near 6ft3 today. He barely edged out Christian Bale. In his prime he could definitely look near it, though. Maybe 189-190cm in his day. 188cm max now though.
188-189cm peak for Connery. Still looked a strong 6ft2 in The Hunt For Red October aged 60 opposite a young Alec Baldwin and he was still looking 186-187cm just a few years ago, so likely is 6ft1ish now.
Lenad said on 3/Jan/14
187-188cm for a young connery. 6'1 max today
187-188cm for a young connery. 6'1 max today
Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/14
Freeman always looked taller on screen to me than Connery. Even now Freeman can look near 6'3". Connery is 6'0.5 max today.
Freeman always looked taller on screen to me than Connery. Even now Freeman can look near 6'3". Connery is 6'0.5 max today.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Dec/13
I think Connery stayed at 6ft2 mark well into his 60s. In The Rock he looked about 6ft3 with Nicolas Cage and that was 1996. I'd be amazed if he came out as only 6ft now.
I think Connery stayed at 6ft2 mark well into his 60s. In The Rock he looked about 6ft3 with Nicolas Cage and that was 1996. I'd be amazed if he came out as only 6ft now.
johnmcc said on 21/Dec/13
Clearly above 6'2 at his peak. "BIG tam" was the tallest bond and was probably between 6'2 - 6'2.75 at peak.
Clearly above 6'2 at his peak. "BIG tam" was the tallest bond and was probably between 6'2 - 6'2.75 at peak.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Dec/13
Yeah, Connery and Freeman looked like guys may have scraped the 189cm mark in their 20s-30s.
Whereas the likes of Caine and Warren Beatty may have been closer to 187cm.
It seems really pedantic at times when we quarrel over a couple of centimetres!
Yeah, Connery and Freeman looked like guys may have scraped the 189cm mark in their 20s-30s.
Whereas the likes of Caine and Warren Beatty may have been closer to 187cm.
It seems really pedantic at times when we quarrel over a couple of centimetres!
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Dec/13
"Peak height was 6ft 2.5in (189cm)"
"Sean Connery's height is 6ft 1in (185cm)"
Don't rule out 186cm either. Wasn't much shorter than Andy Murray in pics. A solid 1.5in lost at 83 is quite remarkable. Anywhere between 6ft2-6ft2.5 for a young Connery is debatable. Not buying the alleged 6ft1.5 tripe. That would put a young Michael Caine at 6ft1 flat and Nicolas Cage at 5ft11 max
"Peak height was 6ft 2.5in (189cm)"
"Sean Connery's height is 6ft 1in (185cm)"
Don't rule out 186cm either. Wasn't much shorter than Andy Murray in pics. A solid 1.5in lost at 83 is quite remarkable. Anywhere between 6ft2-6ft2.5 for a young Connery is debatable. Not buying the alleged 6ft1.5 tripe. That would put a young Michael Caine at 6ft1 flat and Nicolas Cage at 5ft11 max
Lenad said on 14/Dec/13
he might have been a weak 6'2
he might have been a weak 6'2
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Dec/13
189cm peak, 185cm now
189cm peak, 185cm now
Lenad said on 6/Dec/13
I think a very solid 187cm peak is a good shout. 184 now
I think a very solid 187cm peak is a good shout. 184 now
pataan19 said on 4/Dec/13
Hey Rob, have you seen the photos of him with Ian Fleming who's listed at 6'0"? Sean really doesn't seem to have 2 inches on him, maybe 1-1.5 inches max! Plus in these photos, Fleming seems to be well into his 50's as well! What do you think Rob??
Editor Rob
Hey Rob, have you seen the photos of him with Ian Fleming who's listed at 6'0"? Sean really doesn't seem to have 2 inches on him, maybe 1-1.5 inches max! Plus in these photos, Fleming seems to be well into his 50's as well! What do you think Rob??
Editor Rob never really looked at how tall fleming is.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Nov/13
Rob why did you take away the mentioning of the 6'2.4 bodybuilding measurement?
Editor Rob
Rob why did you take away the mentioning of the 6'2.4 bodybuilding measurement?
Editor Rob I wanted to find the mention again in print before adding it back.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Nov/13
Connery at 6'1.5" though puts Anthony Perkins at 6'0.5" and john Gavin at 6'3 etc, although Donald Sutherland did have about two inches on Connery and I think he was a slightly shorter than Clint Eastwood peak.
Connery at 6'1.5" though puts Anthony Perkins at 6'0.5" and john Gavin at 6'3 etc, although Donald Sutherland did have about two inches on Connery and I think he was a slightly shorter than Clint Eastwood peak.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Nov/13
Rampage Connery had about an inch on Anthony Perkins in Orient express who Rob has at 6'1.5" on here and looked 188-9 next to Vanessa Redgrave.
Rampage Connery had about an inch on Anthony Perkins in Orient express who Rob has at 6'1.5" on here and looked 188-9 next to Vanessa Redgrave.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Nov/13
Costner is/was for sure at least a solid 6ft1in in his youth. Connery could appear noticeably taller in some scenes and just barely taller in others. It's fair to say that he hovered around the 6ft2in mark for quite a while.
Costner is/was for sure at least a solid 6ft1in in his youth. Connery could appear noticeably taller in some scenes and just barely taller in others. It's fair to say that he hovered around the 6ft2in mark for quite a while.
Martin said on 20/Nov/13
Rob, I think you need to downgrade him to 6ft 1.5in, which was measured by EON. If you display the current height, it will be around 6ft 1in
Rob, I think you need to downgrade him to 6ft 1.5in, which was measured by EON. If you display the current height, it will be around 6ft 1in
Sam said on 12/Nov/13
For sure in every scene and still from The Untouchables where they are standing on equal ground, Connery seems a solid inch taller than Costner.
Click Here
For sure in every scene and still from The Untouchables where they are standing on equal ground, Connery seems a solid inch taller than Costner.
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 11/Nov/13
Saw The Untouchables last night, first time in about 15 years. Hard to decide how he fared next to Kevin Costner. At times he could look 1-2 inches taller, at other times they looked the same height.
Saw The Untouchables last night, first time in about 15 years. Hard to decide how he fared next to Kevin Costner. At times he could look 1-2 inches taller, at other times they looked the same height.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Nov/13
He looked 6ft2-3 aged 66 next to Nicolas Cage in The Rock.
He looked 6ft2-3 aged 66 next to Nicolas Cage in The Rock.
Arch Stanton said on 6/Nov/13
I don't think he looked quite as tall on screen as Charlton Heston Rampage.
I don't think he looked quite as tall on screen as Charlton Heston Rampage.
Arch Stanton said on 6/Nov/13
He really was incredibly tall Napier, and very broad shouldered despite his skinny frame. He looked a lot broader than Connery who was obviously a well-built guy himself.
He really was incredibly tall Napier, and very broad shouldered despite his skinny frame. He looked a lot broader than Connery who was obviously a well-built guy himself.
Arch Stanton said on 6/Nov/13
If you watch Marnie you'll see he really doesn't look under 6'2" next to 6'6" Alan Napier, if anything you could argue 189cm more than 6'1". But Napier was one of the few guys Connery ever stood next to on screen which made him look average!
If you watch Marnie you'll see he really doesn't look under 6'2" next to 6'6" Alan Napier, if anything you could argue 189cm more than 6'1". But Napier was one of the few guys Connery ever stood next to on screen which made him look average!
Rusty said on 17/Sep/13
I think the 6'2.4" was taken quite early in the day. I think 6'2" on the nose is the most he ever could have been
I think the 6'2.4" was taken quite early in the day. I think 6'2" on the nose is the most he ever could have been
Mario said on 6/Sep/13
He was measured at 6 ft 2.4 back then during is early bodybuilding days when he was in his 20s, but i'm fine with this height listening, it's probably close enough to the truth.
He was measured at 6 ft 2.4 back then during is early bodybuilding days when he was in his 20s, but i'm fine with this height listening, it's probably close enough to the truth.
avi said on 5/Sep/13
Full 6'2 but who knows the tailors may under measure by .5 or more. I agree can give stronger 6'2 impression.
@Rob
Which Bond movie did you get the highest impression he was more a 6'2 flat guy? I agree he's about 6'2 not 6'3 like I saw before in some sites.
Full 6'2 but who knows the tailors may under measure by .5 or more. I agree can give stronger 6'2 impression.
@Rob
Which Bond movie did you get the highest impression he was more a 6'2 flat guy? I agree he's about 6'2 not 6'3 like I saw before in some sites.
KROC said on 20/Aug/13
Wasn't he measured at 6'1.5 by the Bond tailors? Not like it matters, I personally think he was the full 6'2.
Wasn't he measured at 6'1.5 by the Bond tailors? Not like it matters, I personally think he was the full 6'2.
Arch Stanton said on 15/Aug/13
Yes, he does look strong 6'1" range in some of the photos.
Yes, he does look strong 6'1" range in some of the photos.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 14/Aug/13
"Peak height was 6ft 2.4in (189cm)"
Is documented as being measured at that height and as being the tallest actor to play James Bond.
Not buying 6ft1.5. He edged out Michael Caine.
"Peak height was 6ft 2.4in (189cm)"
Is documented as being measured at that height and as being the tallest actor to play James Bond.
Not buying 6ft1.5. He edged out Michael Caine.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Aug/13
Eh...Arch you need to look at those pictures again.
He looked barely shorter than Murray in some of them and in others maybe 1in shorter.
I admit that he can appear barely over 6ft now. But, if he stood for a measurement I'm confident he'd be taller than you think.
Eh...Arch you need to look at those pictures again.
He looked barely shorter than Murray in some of them and in others maybe 1in shorter.
I admit that he can appear barely over 6ft now. But, if he stood for a measurement I'm confident he'd be taller than you think.
Arch Stanton said on 5/Aug/13
Rob I see you say you used to have him at 6'2.25 189cm. What was the reason for the downgrade? I can still believe that he did measure 6'2.4" earlier in the day in his 20s though can't you?
Editor Rob
Rob I see you say you used to have him at 6'2.25 189cm. What was the reason for the downgrade? I can still believe that he did measure 6'2.4" earlier in the day in his 20s though can't you?
Editor Rob watching early bond I thought a 6ft 2 on the nose was a better shout
Arch Stanton said on 5/Aug/13
Not sure he'd measure over 6'1" today Rampage. He looked 184 tops next to Andy Murray. I can believe that he measured 189 earlier in the day as a young man, but remember that he claims 6'1.5" and that was the height he was measured at for Bond and he did look minimum 2 inches shorter than Donald Sutherland. I think 6'2" peak is fair though.
Not sure he'd measure over 6'1" today Rampage. He looked 184 tops next to Andy Murray. I can believe that he measured 189 earlier in the day as a young man, but remember that he claims 6'1.5" and that was the height he was measured at for Bond and he did look minimum 2 inches shorter than Donald Sutherland. I think 6'2" peak is fair though.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 31/Jul/13
6ft2.25/189cm peak
6ft1.25/186cm today
For 83, 1in loss is quite phenomenal
6ft2.25/189cm peak
6ft1.25/186cm today
For 83, 1in loss is quite phenomenal
robe said on 29/Jul/13
I also think that Connery was while playing bond 188-189 cm.
Never under 6'2 in his youth.
I also think that Connery was while playing bond 188-189 cm.
Never under 6'2 in his youth.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 27/Jul/13
Rob, didn't you originally have Connery at 189cm?
Editor Rob
Rob, didn't you originally have Connery at 189cm?
Editor Rob one time a fraction over 6ft 2 yeah
Lenad said on 26/Jul/13
described as 6'2 a lot in his younger days. Good enough for me
described as 6'2 a lot in his younger days. Good enough for me
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Jul/13
Connery was described as 6ft2 or 6ft3 in the 60s
and usually looked both at times. 189cm peak.
Yeah Lazenby looked a strong 6ft2 but 188cm peak for him looks right
Connery was described as 6ft2 or 6ft3 in the 60s
and usually looked both at times. 189cm peak.
Yeah Lazenby looked a strong 6ft2 but 188cm peak for him looks right
jamie said on 21/Jul/13
"Connery; Peak: 6'2" Current: 6'0.5"
Lazenby; Peak: 6'0 Current: 5'11"
Moore; Peak: 6'1" Current: 6'0.25"
Dalton; Peak: 6'2" Current: 6'1.5"
Brosnan; Peak: 6'1.5" Current: 6'0.75"
Craig: 5'10" (Camera angles and lift boots akin to Tom Cruise's make him look taller)"
Lazenby, 6'0"?? Lolwut? He was clearly a strong 6'2". To say he was slightly under is madness.
"Connery; Peak: 6'2" Current: 6'0.5"
Lazenby; Peak: 6'0 Current: 5'11"
Moore; Peak: 6'1" Current: 6'0.25"
Dalton; Peak: 6'2" Current: 6'1.5"
Brosnan; Peak: 6'1.5" Current: 6'0.75"
Craig: 5'10" (Camera angles and lift boots akin to Tom Cruise's make him look taller)"
Lazenby, 6'0"?? Lolwut? He was clearly a strong 6'2". To say he was slightly under is madness.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Jul/13
A lot of them are fairly accurate. But some are a bit iffy.
The Jim Carrey model looked about 6ft. Travolta looked 6ft2!
A lot of them are fairly accurate. But some are a bit iffy.
The Jim Carrey model looked about 6ft. Travolta looked 6ft2!
walter said on 12/Jul/13
But i think this time they got it right,lol, precisely the height that you guessed for Connery on 20Jan2013,Rampage!Madame Tussauds is probably as close as i will ever get to a celebrity,lol.
But i think this time they got it right,lol, precisely the height that you guessed for Connery on 20Jan2013,Rampage!Madame Tussauds is probably as close as i will ever get to a celebrity,lol.
Sam said on 12/Jul/13
I've been to that wax museum and got the impression they tried to approximate the celebrities' heights. For some reason the Wayne one has his legs spread and isn't standing tall. I seem to recall Mick Jagger's was in also in a height dropping position and had, for some reason, a blonde wig. Most of the wax figures looked pretty close to their celebheights listing, though.
I've been to that wax museum and got the impression they tried to approximate the celebrities' heights. For some reason the Wayne one has his legs spread and isn't standing tall. I seem to recall Mick Jagger's was in also in a height dropping position and had, for some reason, a blonde wig. Most of the wax figures looked pretty close to their celebheights listing, though.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Jul/13
The Madam Tussauds wax models are useless for guessing height. I'm just over 6ft3 and John Wayne was slightly shorter than me and it's common knowledge that The Duke was a solid 6ft4!
The Madam Tussauds wax models are useless for guessing height. I'm just over 6ft3 and John Wayne was slightly shorter than me and it's common knowledge that The Duke was a solid 6ft4!
walter said on 10/Jul/13
finally the photo:under this is the photo with me and Sean Connery and another guy in Madame Tussauds,i am on the left of the photo,i am 6'1.
P.S.Rob,thanks for the imgur hint!
finally the photo:under this is the photo with me and Sean Connery and another guy in Madame Tussauds,i am on the left of the photo,i am 6'1.
P.S.Rob,thanks for the imgur hint!
Unknown said on 23/Jun/13
Looks about 6' to me,and I don't think that he has shrunk, but unless you see an actor BAREFEET, all those height discussions are a waste of time.
Looks about 6' to me,and I don't think that he has shrunk, but unless you see an actor BAREFEET, all those height discussions are a waste of time.
walter said on 27/May/13
i dont know if i can upload a photo,how to do it?
Editor Rob
i dont know if i can upload a photo,how to do it?
Editor Rob try using imgur.com or tinyurl.com to link to it/upload it
walter said on 16/May/13
i will upload a photo taken in Madame Tussauds museum in London in 1998,i am on the left of the photo,i am about 185cm(6'1),theres me on the photo and waxed Sean Connery and another guy.
i will upload a photo taken in Madame Tussauds museum in London in 1998,i am on the left of the photo,i am about 185cm(6'1),theres me on the photo and waxed Sean Connery and another guy.
wiltonstilts said on 25/Apr/13
He appeared to be the same height as Kevin costner in the untouchables who's 6'1, or even .25 inches shorter at times maybe .25 inches taller at times too so 6'2 maybe in his peak but certainly not now. The mans 80 some odd years old I'd say he's still a very tall man.
He appeared to be the same height as Kevin costner in the untouchables who's 6'1, or even .25 inches shorter at times maybe .25 inches taller at times too so 6'2 maybe in his peak but certainly not now. The mans 80 some odd years old I'd say he's still a very tall man.
Ud190.5cm said on 23/Apr/13
He was never a legit 6'2.He has always been 6'1.5 barefoot as measured during his bond era and in those years he was a young man in his early 30s so he could'nt have lost height.Rob why is it that except for Timothy Dalton all the bonds have been listed half an inch more than their actual barefoot heights??
He was never a legit 6'2.He has always been 6'1.5 barefoot as measured during his bond era and in those years he was a young man in his early 30s so he could'nt have lost height.Rob why is it that except for Timothy Dalton all the bonds have been listed half an inch more than their actual barefoot heights??
Lenad said on 19/Apr/13
he always looked 6'2ish to me in his younger days. He was described as 6'2 a lot and he was claimed to be measured 6'1 1/2 without shoes. So I conclude that Connery was 6'2 give or take half an inch
he always looked 6'2ish to me in his younger days. He was described as 6'2 a lot and he was claimed to be measured 6'1 1/2 without shoes. So I conclude that Connery was 6'2 give or take half an inch
Lenad said on 10/Apr/13
I admit I wouldnt rule out 189cm peak. I wouldnt go higher than that though
I admit I wouldnt rule out 189cm peak. I wouldnt go higher than that though
Lorne! said on 7/Apr/13
189cm peak, A FACT. I think the 6ft2.4 measurement was legit, and that he was 6ft2.25 by the evening. Not to mention he was a tad taller than Michael Caine, and 3-4cm taller than 6ft0.75in Ford at age 60. Come on, man!
189cm peak, A FACT. I think the 6ft2.4 measurement was legit, and that he was 6ft2.25 by the evening. Not to mention he was a tad taller than Michael Caine, and 3-4cm taller than 6ft0.75in Ford at age 60. Come on, man!
Lenad said on 30/Mar/13
188cm peak. 184-185cm now
188cm peak. 184-185cm now
peaceman said on 20/Mar/13
He said in the 90´s to Jay Leno on The Tonigh Show that he is 6´1
He said in the 90´s to Jay Leno on The Tonigh Show that he is 6´1
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Mar/13
Yeah, also 0.5in taller than Caine at the Oscars in 1988 when they presented the award to Kevin Kline (also 6ft2 at the time)
Yeah, also 0.5in taller than Caine at the Oscars in 1988 when they presented the award to Kevin Kline (also 6ft2 at the time)
Nerfherder said on 24/Feb/13
Over 6'2 in his prime (he edged out legit 6'2 michael caine by almost an inch in The Man Who Would Be King)
Over 6'2 in his prime (he edged out legit 6'2 michael caine by almost an inch in The Man Who Would Be King)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Jan/13
Connery; Peak: 6ft 2.5in (189cm), Current: 6ft 1.25in (186cm)
Lazenby; Peak: 6ft 2in (188cm), Current: 6ft 0.5in (184cm)
Dalton; Peak 6ft 2in (188cm), Current: 6ft 1.75in (187cm)
Brosnan; Peak 6ft 1.75in (187cm), Current: 6ft 1.5in(187cm)
Moore; Peak 6ft 1.5in (187cm), Current: 6ft 0in (183cm)
Connery; Peak: 6ft 2.5in (189cm), Current: 6ft 1.25in (186cm)
Lazenby; Peak: 6ft 2in (188cm), Current: 6ft 0.5in (184cm)
Dalton; Peak 6ft 2in (188cm), Current: 6ft 1.75in (187cm)
Brosnan; Peak 6ft 1.75in (187cm), Current: 6ft 1.5in(187cm)
Moore; Peak 6ft 1.5in (187cm), Current: 6ft 0in (183cm)
Brad1 said on 17/Jan/13
Lazenby didn't look 6' 1.5" last sunday when I shook his hand. Most of SC's 007 co-stars told me 6' 2". As listed.
Lazenby didn't look 6' 1.5" last sunday when I shook his hand. Most of SC's 007 co-stars told me 6' 2". As listed.
Brad said on 9/Jan/13
*I screwed up on Lazenby's. I didn't realize his current height was supposed to be 6', he also turns out to be closer to 6'1.5" on closer inspection.
*I screwed up on Lazenby's. I didn't realize his current height was supposed to be 6', he also turns out to be closer to 6'1.5" on closer inspection.
Brad said on 4/Jan/13
Bond heights:
Connery; Peak: 6'2" Current: 6'0.5"
Lazenby; Peak: 6'0 Current: 5'11"
Moore; Peak: 6'1" Current: 6'0.25"
Dalton; Peak: 6'2" Current: 6'1.5"
Brosnan; Peak: 6'1.5" Current: 6'0.75"
Craig: 5'10" (Camera angles and lift boots akin to Tom Cruise's make him look taller)
Bond heights:
Connery; Peak: 6'2" Current: 6'0.5"
Lazenby; Peak: 6'0 Current: 5'11"
Moore; Peak: 6'1" Current: 6'0.25"
Dalton; Peak: 6'2" Current: 6'1.5"
Brosnan; Peak: 6'1.5" Current: 6'0.75"
Craig: 5'10" (Camera angles and lift boots akin to Tom Cruise's make him look taller)
Miguel said on 24/Dec/12
A few years ago (since 2000), while on the David Letterman show, he claimed to be 6ft.1.5.
A few years ago (since 2000), while on the David Letterman show, he claimed to be 6ft.1.5.
miko said on 18/Dec/12
He's still well over 6'0 today in his 80's.
He's still well over 6'0 today in his 80's.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Dec/12
Peak Heights
Connery 6ft2.25-6ft2.5
Brosnan 6ft1.5-6ft1.75
Moore 6ft1.5-6ft1.75
Peak Heights
Connery 6ft2.25-6ft2.5
Brosnan 6ft1.5-6ft1.75
Moore 6ft1.5-6ft1.75
Spencer said on 8/Dec/12
I think (Peak Heights)
Connery: 6'2.25
Brosnan: 6'1
Moore: 6'1.5
I think (Peak Heights)
Connery: 6'2.25
Brosnan: 6'1
Moore: 6'1.5
Original said on 4/Dec/12
Peak is 6'2".
Peak is 6'2".
Copnovelist195 said on 9/Nov/12
If you see him alongside Claudine Auger in Thunderball, he's approximately the same height as her when he's in bare feet and she's in heels (say 3in). She's listed as 5ft8 in internet biographies (I always thought of her as 5ft10 actually). I would put him a 6ft0
If you see him alongside Claudine Auger in Thunderball, he's approximately the same height as her when he's in bare feet and she's in heels (say 3in). She's listed as 5ft8 in internet biographies (I always thought of her as 5ft10 actually). I would put him a 6ft0
James said on 3/Nov/12
Today he's 6'1 tops
Today he's 6'1 tops
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Oct/12
Today he's probably 6ft1-6ft2.
Today he's probably 6ft1-6ft2.
nick kanelkakis said on 29/Oct/12
i think connery is 6"1 6'2 and weighed 180 in the bond movies cause some people dont think good when they guess weight pretty much the cops are dumb asses if they arrest a six ft man they cant gues 175 cause there queers lmao they dont know the imperial system sean connery can beat them up
i think connery is 6"1 6'2 and weighed 180 in the bond movies cause some people dont think good when they guess weight pretty much the cops are dumb asses if they arrest a six ft man they cant gues 175 cause there queers lmao they dont know the imperial system sean connery can beat them up
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Oct/12
@Shaun: yeah I do think he was 6ft2.5 peak..and yes he probably has lost a lot of height. He's 82 bloody years old! He looks 1-1.5in shorter than Murray.
Solid 6ft1 today, possibly 186cm. Murray could be 190cm
@Shaun: yeah I do think he was 6ft2.5 peak..and yes he probably has lost a lot of height. He's 82 bloody years old! He looks 1-1.5in shorter than Murray.
Solid 6ft1 today, possibly 186cm. Murray could be 190cm
Shaun said on 18/Oct/12
He looked a full 6'2" peak but nothing more.
He looked a full 6'2" peak but nothing more.
James said on 16/Oct/12
Shaun would that mean that Connery was 187cm?
Shaun would that mean that Connery was 187cm?
Shaun said on 15/Oct/12
Rampage so you still think Connery was 6'2.5"? Compare him to 6'2.5" Andy Murray today. He must have lost a lot of height.
Rampage so you still think Connery was 6'2.5"? Compare him to 6'2.5" Andy Murray today. He must have lost a lot of height.
Shaun said on 15/Oct/12
James says on 8/Oct/12
Well in Diamonds are forever he looked 190cm but probably not over 188cm peak.
Actually he looked 1-1.5 inches shorter than 6'3" Jimmy Dean (WiIlard Whyte in that film) but I know what you mean.
James says on 8/Oct/12
Well in Diamonds are forever he looked 190cm but probably not over 188cm peak.
Actually he looked 1-1.5 inches shorter than 6'3" Jimmy Dean (WiIlard Whyte in that film) but I know what you mean.
James said on 8/Oct/12
Well in Diamonds are forever he looked 190cm but probably not over 188cm peak.
Well in Diamonds are forever he looked 190cm but probably not over 188cm peak.
Shaun said on 28/Sep/12
Connery of course was a bodybuilder for some years as a younger man too so also taking that into consideration.
Connery of course was a bodybuilder for some years as a younger man too so also taking that into consideration.
Shaun said on 28/Sep/12
6 ft 2 for him now anyway is literally impossible seeing him next to Andy Murray. But in all fairness Connery's height loss has been quite slow, as you say he was still looking a strong 6'1" by his last film. 1.5 inch height loss for an 82 year old man is under average I think based on the 1 inch per decade over 60 don't you think Rob?
6 ft 2 for him now anyway is literally impossible seeing him next to Andy Murray. But in all fairness Connery's height loss has been quite slow, as you say he was still looking a strong 6'1" by his last film. 1.5 inch height loss for an 82 year old man is under average I think based on the 1 inch per decade over 60 don't you think Rob?
Shaun said on 28/Sep/12
Yeah I quite agree with you. I reckon Connery and Eastwood should have a face-off! I think they could both possibly be 185 at some point in the day if stood as straight as possible but I seriously doubt either of them are over 6'1" anymore. Eastwood can still look a full 6'1" on occasion though and then barely look 6' at other times.
Yeah I quite agree with you. I reckon Connery and Eastwood should have a face-off! I think they could both possibly be 185 at some point in the day if stood as straight as possible but I seriously doubt either of them are over 6'1" anymore. Eastwood can still look a full 6'1" on occasion though and then barely look 6' at other times.
Shaun said on 27/Sep/12
Rob what height would you estimate him today?
Editor Rob
Rob what height would you estimate him today?
Editor Rob maybe around 184 if measured
Shaun said on 26/Sep/12
Rob what height would you estimate him today? I think he could be about Eastwood's height today 184-5 cm?
Rob what height would you estimate him today? I think he could be about Eastwood's height today 184-5 cm?
Shaun said on 26/Sep/12
Yeah Josh definitely has the Eastwood factor in that pic!
Yeah Josh definitely has the Eastwood factor in that pic!
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 17/Sep/12
Looks 1.5-2in shorter than Murray. But I'd say a prime Sean Connery would've stacked up well next to Murray.
Looks 1.5-2in shorter than Murray. But I'd say a prime Sean Connery would've stacked up well next to Murray.
Josh B said on 13/Sep/12
@Shaun very long legs in the murray pic, looks to have lost upper body height like Eastwood.
@Shaun very long legs in the murray pic, looks to have lost upper body height like Eastwood.
tom said on 10/Sep/12
Now I would guess around 6-0" by looking at him next to andy murray,has lost 2" imo.
Now I would guess around 6-0" by looking at him next to andy murray,has lost 2" imo.
Squire said on 9/Sep/12
I was in Edinburgh at the premier of 'Sean Connery's Edinburgh' I stood next to him and he seemed to tower above me, I'm 180. He was very impressive even at that age (1983)
I was in Edinburgh at the premier of 'Sean Connery's Edinburgh' I stood next to him and he seemed to tower above me, I'm 180. He was very impressive even at that age (1983)
matt said on 9/Sep/12
ridiculous who cares he's intact 6 2
ridiculous who cares he's intact 6 2
Shaun said on 9/Sep/12
Click Here
Rob here he is with Andy Murray. He looks close in one photo and then easily 2-3 inches shorter in some of the others. If I had a guess I'd put Connery at '6-6'.5 today, but he's 82 and has likely lost an inch or or two. Last I saw of him he looked quite ill and wondered how long he'd last but he looks superb in these photos, fantastic for an 82 year old guy, looked tanned and healthy.
Click Here
Rob here he is with Andy Murray. He looks close in one photo and then easily 2-3 inches shorter in some of the others. If I had a guess I'd put Connery at '6-6'.5 today, but he's 82 and has likely lost an inch or or two. Last I saw of him he looked quite ill and wondered how long he'd last but he looks superb in these photos, fantastic for an 82 year old guy, looked tanned and healthy.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Aug/12
Not under 6ft2. With those long legs and arms he could easily have
passed for 6ft3. 189cm peak, 186-187cm today
Not under 6ft2. With those long legs and arms he could easily have
passed for 6ft3. 189cm peak, 186-187cm today
jk said on 1/Aug/12
Looked around 6'3 in the Anderson tapes now he's around 187 cm
Looked around 6'3 in the Anderson tapes now he's around 187 cm
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/Jun/12
Caine 188cm
Connery 189cm
Caine 188cm
Connery 189cm
rafa said on 10/Jun/12
A bit under the 6'2.5" mark in his prime.
A bit under the 6'2.5" mark in his prime.
Henrik said on 8/Jun/12
In Dr. No, Connery looked to be edging Anthony Dawson (who played Professor Dent) a little. I've seen 6'2" listings for Dawson, and I wouldn't really buy that he was shorter than a legit 6'1". So I would say that Connery gave the impression of pushing towards the 6'3" mark in that scene.
In Dr. No, Connery looked to be edging Anthony Dawson (who played Professor Dent) a little. I've seen 6'2" listings for Dawson, and I wouldn't really buy that he was shorter than a legit 6'1". So I would say that Connery gave the impression of pushing towards the 6'3" mark in that scene.
James said on 15/Jan/12
i think roughly 6'3 (190cm) is what he looked in diamonds are forever.
189cm is not impossible at his peak
i think roughly 6'3 (190cm) is what he looked in diamonds are forever.
189cm is not impossible at his peak
Henrik said on 12/Jan/12
James says on 12/Jan/12
he appeared 6'3 in diamonds are forever
I wasn't talking about the whole movie, but that scene in particular.
James says on 12/Jan/12
he appeared 6'3 in diamonds are forever
I wasn't talking about the whole movie, but that scene in particular.
James said on 12/Jan/12
he appeared 6'3 in diamonds are forever
he appeared 6'3 in diamonds are forever
Henrik said on 8/Jan/12
I just watched Diamonds Are Forever. I am willing to give Edgar and thebad7 right and admit myself to stand corrected when coming to the discussion we had a few months ago when arguing about Connery's leg length. In the scene where he is meeting Felix and his crew, Bond is seen without a jacket and his proportions are shown quite clearly. His legs came off as very long. I'd say that I had a solid 6'2" impression in that scene.
I just watched Diamonds Are Forever. I am willing to give Edgar and thebad7 right and admit myself to stand corrected when coming to the discussion we had a few months ago when arguing about Connery's leg length. In the scene where he is meeting Felix and his crew, Bond is seen without a jacket and his proportions are shown quite clearly. His legs came off as very long. I'd say that I had a solid 6'2" impression in that scene.
James said on 27/Dec/11
Shaun says on 26/Dec/11
In Diamonds Forever yeah he did give off a 190cm impression at times. I'll admit he could often look very similar in height to Challenger #5 and Hugh's 189cm claim often didn't look too far off. I do think the 6'2.4" measurement might have been legitimate as a young man at some point in the day. To me he looked a full 6'2" in most of his films if I'm being perfectly honest. James look at his legs in the hallway of the Miami hotel in Goldfinger, difficult to see him under 6'2". Lets not forget though he was 2-2.5 inches shorter than legit 6'4" Rik van Nutter in Thunderball and that legit 6'4" ex Americn footballer in Never Say Never Again so that really but anything like 6'2.5" out.
Shaun for christmas i got the james bond ultimate dvd collectors set with all the films so far so maybe i can study connerys height.
Shaun says on 26/Dec/11
In Diamonds Forever yeah he did give off a 190cm impression at times. I'll admit he could often look very similar in height to Challenger #5 and Hugh's 189cm claim often didn't look too far off. I do think the 6'2.4" measurement might have been legitimate as a young man at some point in the day. To me he looked a full 6'2" in most of his films if I'm being perfectly honest. James look at his legs in the hallway of the Miami hotel in Goldfinger, difficult to see him under 6'2". Lets not forget though he was 2-2.5 inches shorter than legit 6'4" Rik van Nutter in Thunderball and that legit 6'4" ex Americn footballer in Never Say Never Again so that really but anything like 6'2.5" out.
Shaun for christmas i got the james bond ultimate dvd collectors set with all the films so far so maybe i can study connerys height.
Shaun said on 26/Dec/11
Click Here
Here's 6'4" Rick Van Nutter with Anita Ekberg, Looks uncannily like Clint Eastwood in body size/face shape. Does look to have the proportions of a legit 6'4" wouldn't you say James?
Click Here
Here's 6'4" Rick Van Nutter with Anita Ekberg, Looks uncannily like Clint Eastwood in body size/face shape. Does look to have the proportions of a legit 6'4" wouldn't you say James?
Shaun said on 26/Dec/11
In Diamonds Forever yeah he did give off a 190cm impression at times. I'll admit he could often look very similar in height to Challenger #5 and Hugh's 189cm claim often didn't look too far off. I do think the 6'2.4" measurement might have been legitimate as a young man at some point in the day. To me he looked a full 6'2" in most of his films if I'm being perfectly honest. James look at his legs in the hallway of the Miami hotel in Goldfinger, difficult to see him under 6'2". Lets not forget though he was 2-2.5 inches shorter than legit 6'4" Rik van Nutter in Thunderball and that legit 6'4" ex Americn footballer in Never Say Never Again so that really but anything like 6'2.5" out.
In Diamonds Forever yeah he did give off a 190cm impression at times. I'll admit he could often look very similar in height to Challenger #5 and Hugh's 189cm claim often didn't look too far off. I do think the 6'2.4" measurement might have been legitimate as a young man at some point in the day. To me he looked a full 6'2" in most of his films if I'm being perfectly honest. James look at his legs in the hallway of the Miami hotel in Goldfinger, difficult to see him under 6'2". Lets not forget though he was 2-2.5 inches shorter than legit 6'4" Rik van Nutter in Thunderball and that legit 6'4" ex Americn footballer in Never Say Never Again so that really but anything like 6'2.5" out.
James said on 16/Dec/11
he could pass for 6'2 though in goldfinger
he could pass for 6'2 though in goldfinger
Ivan said on 16/Dec/11
James says on 5/Nov/11
do u guys agree that in russia with love connery looked like 6'1
He looks between 6'1 and 6'2
James says on 5/Nov/11
do u guys agree that in russia with love connery looked like 6'1
He looks between 6'1 and 6'2
James said on 7/Dec/11
did look 6'3 in diamonds are forever
did look 6'3 in diamonds are forever
Lenad said on 5/Dec/11
185cm now. 188cm peak
185cm now. 188cm peak
Shaun said on 7/Nov/11
Mario says on 5/Nov/11
Nope, he dwarfed Robert Shaw and he was considerable taller than Pedro Armendáriz who is also on the tall side.
Remember Shaw was wearing big lifts in his scenes with Connery as he was only 5'10" and they needed to make him look more imposing.
Mario says on 5/Nov/11
Nope, he dwarfed Robert Shaw and he was considerable taller than Pedro Armendáriz who is also on the tall side.
Remember Shaw was wearing big lifts in his scenes with Connery as he was only 5'10" and they needed to make him look more imposing.
James said on 7/Nov/11
thebad7 says on 5/Nov/11
@James: With dress shoes, he always looks 6'3", especially in the Bond Films. Also, from the same period he did a great noir film from 1961 titled THE FRIGHTENED CITY and he worked with Alfred Hitchcock and Tippi Hedren in '64 for MARNIE. He looks 6'3" in dress shoes in those two as well, which corresponds to 6'2". That '50s bodybuilding measurement carries more weight for me than the Bond Tailors' shenanigans, coupled with the fact that he always looks noticeably taller than 6'0" and 6'1" actors, even well into his 60s.
6'2" I always bought for him, but after recently watching him in 1975's THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, I starting seriously considering whether some change ought to be added to that 6'2" for him. He is at least a half inch taller than 6'2" Michael Caine, and what I really noticed was how long his legs are, especially in scenes towards the end of the film when Connery wears only an old-fashioned tunic.
Also, some posters mentioned Connery himself saying 6'1 1/2" on one of the late night comedy shows (I can't remember which one it was). He's always projected himself as a strong, confident guy offscreen, and I wouldn't be surprised if he made a joke of his height by saying that. Actors are very aware of the gravitas surrounding a man's height. I always liked Connery--he had a great screen presence. It's too
yeah i agree with you on that. connery always looked tall even in his later films.
LAN Jiao i think connery would have an edge on clint eastwood.
thebad7 says on 5/Nov/11
@James: With dress shoes, he always looks 6'3", especially in the Bond Films. Also, from the same period he did a great noir film from 1961 titled THE FRIGHTENED CITY and he worked with Alfred Hitchcock and Tippi Hedren in '64 for MARNIE. He looks 6'3" in dress shoes in those two as well, which corresponds to 6'2". That '50s bodybuilding measurement carries more weight for me than the Bond Tailors' shenanigans, coupled with the fact that he always looks noticeably taller than 6'0" and 6'1" actors, even well into his 60s.
6'2" I always bought for him, but after recently watching him in 1975's THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, I starting seriously considering whether some change ought to be added to that 6'2" for him. He is at least a half inch taller than 6'2" Michael Caine, and what I really noticed was how long his legs are, especially in scenes towards the end of the film when Connery wears only an old-fashioned tunic.
Also, some posters mentioned Connery himself saying 6'1 1/2" on one of the late night comedy shows (I can't remember which one it was). He's always projected himself as a strong, confident guy offscreen, and I wouldn't be surprised if he made a joke of his height by saying that. Actors are very aware of the gravitas surrounding a man's height. I always liked Connery--he had a great screen presence. It's too
yeah i agree with you on that. connery always looked tall even in his later films.
LAN Jiao i think connery would have an edge on clint eastwood.
LAN Jiao said on 6/Nov/11
6'2.4 during age 20-late30 , 6'1.9 from age 40 to mid 50 , 6'1.5 from age of late 50 to mid 60 , mid 60 crisis make connery to drop 0.75 at late 60s of age 6'0.75 to currently. may dip under 185cm today. not under 184cm. maybe same height as clint now.
6'2.4 during age 20-late30 , 6'1.9 from age 40 to mid 50 , 6'1.5 from age of late 50 to mid 60 , mid 60 crisis make connery to drop 0.75 at late 60s of age 6'0.75 to currently. may dip under 185cm today. not under 184cm. maybe same height as clint now.
thebad7 said on 5/Nov/11
@James: With dress shoes, he always looks 6'3", especially in the Bond Films. Also, from the same period he did a great noir film from 1961 titled THE FRIGHTENED CITY and he worked with Alfred Hitchcock and Tippi Hedren in '64 for MARNIE. He looks 6'3" in dress shoes in those two as well, which corresponds to 6'2". That '50s bodybuilding measurement carries more weight for me than the Bond Tailors' shenanigans, coupled with the fact that he always looks noticeably taller than 6'0" and 6'1" actors, even well into his 60s.
6'2" I always bought for him, but after recently watching him in 1975's THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, I starting seriously considering whether some change ought to be added to that 6'2" for him. He is at least a half inch taller than 6'2" Michael Caine, and what I really noticed was how long his legs are, especially in scenes towards the end of the film when Connery wears only an old-fashioned tunic.
Also, some posters mentioned Connery himself saying 6'1 1/2" on one of the late night comedy shows (I can't remember which one it was). He's always projected himself as a strong, confident guy offscreen, and I wouldn't be surprised if he made a joke of his height by saying that. Actors are very aware of the gravitas surrounding a man's height. I always liked Connery--he had a great screen presence. It's too bad he is fully in retirement.
tb7
@James: With dress shoes, he always looks 6'3", especially in the Bond Films. Also, from the same period he did a great noir film from 1961 titled THE FRIGHTENED CITY and he worked with Alfred Hitchcock and Tippi Hedren in '64 for MARNIE. He looks 6'3" in dress shoes in those two as well, which corresponds to 6'2". That '50s bodybuilding measurement carries more weight for me than the Bond Tailors' shenanigans, coupled with the fact that he always looks noticeably taller than 6'0" and 6'1" actors, even well into his 60s.
6'2" I always bought for him, but after recently watching him in 1975's THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, I starting seriously considering whether some change ought to be added to that 6'2" for him. He is at least a half inch taller than 6'2" Michael Caine, and what I really noticed was how long his legs are, especially in scenes towards the end of the film when Connery wears only an old-fashioned tunic.
Also, some posters mentioned Connery himself saying 6'1 1/2" on one of the late night comedy shows (I can't remember which one it was). He's always projected himself as a strong, confident guy offscreen, and I wouldn't be surprised if he made a joke of his height by saying that. Actors are very aware of the gravitas surrounding a man's height. I always liked Connery--he had a great screen presence. It's too bad he is fully in retirement.
tb7
Mario said on 5/Nov/11
Nope, he dwarfed Robert Shaw and he was considerable taller than Pedro Armendáriz who is also on the tall side.
Nope, he dwarfed Robert Shaw and he was considerable taller than Pedro Armendáriz who is also on the tall side.
James said on 5/Nov/11
do u guys agree that in russia with love connery looked like 6'1?
do u guys agree that in russia with love connery looked like 6'1?
Shaun said on 5/Nov/11
Roch looks 240-250 pounds. Connery looks about 210 pounds in that film.
Roch looks 240-250 pounds. Connery looks about 210 pounds in that film.
EdgarHernandez said on 4/Nov/11
pat roch looks like a solid 6ft4., then again is a fight scene and is not a very good height reference, i think the best moment 2:12 when connery is just abau to punch him, also connery is in boxing position, no to mention roch is a good 30 pounds havier that connery wich makes him more imposing. Also, the scene and camera angles indicated that this in this scene was meant to look bigger than connery(the camera sometimes i deliverated by his side, or when facing connery he straight and connery not).
pat roch looks like a solid 6ft4., then again is a fight scene and is not a very good height reference, i think the best moment 2:12 when connery is just abau to punch him, also connery is in boxing position, no to mention roch is a good 30 pounds havier that connery wich makes him more imposing. Also, the scene and camera angles indicated that this in this scene was meant to look bigger than connery(the camera sometimes i deliverated by his side, or when facing connery he straight and connery not).
James said on 4/Nov/11
Shaun says on 3/Nov/11
Difficult to tell but probably around 3 inches. Pat Roch definitely looks a legit 6'4.5". Similar height and frame to Sven Ole Thorsen.
that would mean connery would have been 6'1.5 then?
Shaun says on 3/Nov/11
Difficult to tell but probably around 3 inches. Pat Roch definitely looks a legit 6'4.5". Similar height and frame to Sven Ole Thorsen.
that would mean connery would have been 6'1.5 then?
Shaun said on 3/Nov/11
Difficult to tell but probably around 3 inches. Pat Roch definitely looks a legit 6'4.5". Similar height and frame to Sven Ole Thorsen.
Difficult to tell but probably around 3 inches. Pat Roch definitely looks a legit 6'4.5". Similar height and frame to Sven Ole Thorsen.
James said on 3/Nov/11
edgar that is not the best photo of connery and sutherland too judge by...
Guys i wonder how much of a gap there would be between clint eastwood and connery if they stood side by side in the 1960's? 1.5 or 2 inches?
edgar that is not the best photo of connery and sutherland too judge by...
Guys i wonder how much of a gap there would be between clint eastwood and connery if they stood side by side in the 1960's? 1.5 or 2 inches?
EdgarHernandez said on 2/Nov/11
donal placeanse james was in fact much more slender but the movie called for a giant in all ways, so he enter in an intensive bodybuilding program of 3 months, and well the rest is history, also is kind of ironic, sean had to lose alot of weight when he first made dr no( you can that in his face, in some scenes he looks emaciated), also james, about the sutherland thing i have found a better shot of connery and sutherland:
Click Here
also, in that movie donald was nearly pure flesh and bones, wich give him the advantage of longer body while sean was more build.
speaking of connery build, this is the skinniest build that i ever see in sean connery:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
donal placeanse james was in fact much more slender but the movie called for a giant in all ways, so he enter in an intensive bodybuilding program of 3 months, and well the rest is history, also is kind of ironic, sean had to lose alot of weight when he first made dr no( you can that in his face, in some scenes he looks emaciated), also james, about the sutherland thing i have found a better shot of connery and sutherland:
Click Here
also, in that movie donald was nearly pure flesh and bones, wich give him the advantage of longer body while sean was more build.
speaking of connery build, this is the skinniest build that i ever see in sean connery:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
James said on 2/Nov/11
Shaun how tall do you think connery looks next too 6'4.5 Pat Roach? this was the early 80's so connery could have been a hair shorter than his peak at this time.
Click Here
I'd like too see how pat roach would do up against that 6'8/6'9 Blonde guy.
Shaun how tall do you think connery looks next too 6'4.5 Pat Roach? this was the early 80's so connery could have been a hair shorter than his peak at this time.
Click Here
I'd like too see how pat roach would do up against that 6'8/6'9 Blonde guy.
Shaun said on 1/Nov/11
If you pause just as 0.08 approaches you'll get the best perspective as they are just about level. Connery actually comes up to the base of Ronald Rich's nose. I'm getting a 6'10" impression in that scene James, what do you think?
If you pause just as 0.08 approaches you'll get the best perspective as they are just about level. Connery actually comes up to the base of Ronald Rich's nose. I'm getting a 6'10" impression in that scene James, what do you think?
Shaun said on 1/Nov/11
Click Here
This clip is much better. I'd say Ronald Rich looks easily 6'8" here and at 0.03 actually looks 6'10" range due to him being closer to the camera. Pause at 0.08 as Connery passes. Connery is level with his nose, that's about 6 inches. He;s a massive guy does look legit 6'8-6'9".
Click Here
This clip is much better. I'd say Ronald Rich looks easily 6'8" here and at 0.03 actually looks 6'10" range due to him being closer to the camera. Pause at 0.08 as Connery passes. Connery is level with his nose, that's about 6 inches. He;s a massive guy does look legit 6'8-6'9".
Shaun said on 1/Nov/11
Click Here
Here's the scene James. Actually 6'8" looks about right, doesn't look 6'10" really, difficult to tell as if Connery is hunched he can look a foot shorter!!, looks like he'd have about 6 inches on Connery but dwarfs him in body size.
Click Here
Here's the scene James. Actually 6'8" looks about right, doesn't look 6'10" really, difficult to tell as if Connery is hunched he can look a foot shorter!!, looks like he'd have about 6 inches on Connery but dwarfs him in body size.
Shaun said on 1/Nov/11
Yeah James Ronald Rich from You oNly Live Twice did look 14-15 inches taller than Donald Pleasance and easily 6 inches taller than Connery. I think he was listed at 6'8" although I as you say I believe he looked more 6'9", possibly 6'10. Perhaps he was 6'10" in shoes? Actually I recall that scene in You only live twice with that blond massive bloke was the first time I saw Connery on screen as a kid and I believed for years he was only like 5'9" or something because of that and for some reason believed he was average as he was absolutely dwarfed by him. I was actually shocked when I learned Connery was 6'2" for the first time at about age 15, I had thought for years he was 5'9", which lookiing back is ridiculous...
Yeah James Ronald Rich from You oNly Live Twice did look 14-15 inches taller than Donald Pleasance and easily 6 inches taller than Connery. I think he was listed at 6'8" although I as you say I believe he looked more 6'9", possibly 6'10. Perhaps he was 6'10" in shoes? Actually I recall that scene in You only live twice with that blond massive bloke was the first time I saw Connery on screen as a kid and I believed for years he was only like 5'9" or something because of that and for some reason believed he was average as he was absolutely dwarfed by him. I was actually shocked when I learned Connery was 6'2" for the first time at about age 15, I had thought for years he was 5'9", which lookiing back is ridiculous...
Shaun said on 1/Nov/11
@ James WTF 36 inch inseams at 5'9"????? CLint Eastwood who I think has 36 inseams looks ridiculously out of proportion at a weak 6'1" , 5'9" you'd look barely human!! LOL 36 waist. We are talking about legs James!!
@ James WTF 36 inch inseams at 5'9"????? CLint Eastwood who I think has 36 inseams looks ridiculously out of proportion at a weak 6'1" , 5'9" you'd look barely human!! LOL 36 waist. We are talking about legs James!!
Ivan said on 1/Nov/11
I saw The Last Crusader, he was 59, look 186 cm tall or at least 1-2 cm shorter than 6'2, 54 years old Julian Glover while Harrisson Ford looked a legit 183-184 cm
I saw The Last Crusader, he was 59, look 186 cm tall or at least 1-2 cm shorter than 6'2, 54 years old Julian Glover while Harrisson Ford looked a legit 183-184 cm
James said on 31/Oct/11
Henrik says on 28/Oct/11
Are you sure that you weren't writing about waist sizes?
yes i meant waist lol :)
Henrik says on 28/Oct/11
Are you sure that you weren't writing about waist sizes?
yes i meant waist lol :)
Henrik said on 28/Oct/11
Are you sure that you weren't writing about waist sizes?
Are you sure that you weren't writing about waist sizes?
Henrik said on 28/Oct/11
James, if you are 5'9" or 5'10" with a 36" inseam, then you have freakishly LONG legs. 36" inseams usually come on 6'4-6'6" guys.
James, if you are 5'9" or 5'10" with a 36" inseam, then you have freakishly LONG legs. 36" inseams usually come on 6'4-6'6" guys.
James said on 25/Oct/11
EdgarHernandez says on 24/Oct/11
james your claim is the weirdest one that i ever heard, i never ever have a change in my inseam, when i was skinny(for my body type) i had a 32 inseam, but know that i am havier(for advice of my doctor) i still the same, are you sure you measure your inseam well?, because to lose 6 inches in inseam is kind of odd, not to mention that you said that you used to have clint legs.
i don't have clint legs.. my legs are very short for my height but i have a long torso. possibly before my jeans were too big for me..?
EdgarHernandez says on 24/Oct/11
james your claim is the weirdest one that i ever heard, i never ever have a change in my inseam, when i was skinny(for my body type) i had a 32 inseam, but know that i am havier(for advice of my doctor) i still the same, are you sure you measure your inseam well?, because to lose 6 inches in inseam is kind of odd, not to mention that you said that you used to have clint legs.
i don't have clint legs.. my legs are very short for my height but i have a long torso. possibly before my jeans were too big for me..?
EdgarHernandez said on 24/Oct/11
james your claim is the weirdest one that i ever heard, i never ever have a change in my inseam, when i was skinny(for my body type) i had a 32 inseam, but know that i am havier(for advice of my doctor) i still the same, are you sure you measure your inseam well?, because to lose 6 inches in inseam is kind of odd, not to mention that you said that you used to have clint legs.
james your claim is the weirdest one that i ever heard, i never ever have a change in my inseam, when i was skinny(for my body type) i had a 32 inseam, but know that i am havier(for advice of my doctor) i still the same, are you sure you measure your inseam well?, because to lose 6 inches in inseam is kind of odd, not to mention that you said that you used to have clint legs.
James said on 24/Oct/11
Was sean connery maybe just stating his current height in 1996 on the jay leno show?
Was sean connery maybe just stating his current height in 1996 on the jay leno show?
Ray said on 21/Oct/11
If someone could locate a copy / transcript of the Tonight show interview with Jay Leno in 1996(episode 921 20 May) with Sean Connery then all this would be sorted out. Connery says 6'1.5"
Editor Rob
If someone could locate a copy / transcript of the Tonight show interview with Jay Leno in 1996(episode 921 20 May) with Sean Connery then all this would be sorted out. Connery says 6'1.5"
Editor Rob if this can be found then it'd be great, I will keep my eyes on this one to see if it can be found.
James said on 21/Oct/11
Shaun says on 20/Oct/11
Connery was the classic mesomorph though wasn't he. He could look 220 pound range in recent decades although recently doesn't even look 200 as he's been ill I think) but if you watch Goldfinger for instance and him walking through the hotel corridor and in the hotel room in Dr. No when he's setting the traps. I would be surprised if he was just a 32 inch inseam. His legs looked long, 34 inseam surely.
shaun i am only 5'9 or 5'10 but when i worked out at the gym and bulked up 2 years i had a 36 inseam. If i was connery height off 6'2 my inseam would be like over 40 maybe? Although its not often that you get 6'2 people who are mesomorphs its more average height guys like 5'10 who have that body type. generally tall or very tall people have ectomorphic body types and are hardgainers when it comes too muscle like clint eastwood or hugh jackman... people were shocked when i told them i had a inseam off 36. now that i have stopped working out my inseam is only 30.
i am not sure if connery was a classic mesomorph since he could look kinda lanky and slim at times. But yeah his muscular build could make him look shorter like 6'1 in his bond films such as from Russia with Love and Thunderball also that 6'9 guy made connery in you only live twice owned sean connery.
Shaun says on 20/Oct/11
Connery was the classic mesomorph though wasn't he. He could look 220 pound range in recent decades although recently doesn't even look 200 as he's been ill I think) but if you watch Goldfinger for instance and him walking through the hotel corridor and in the hotel room in Dr. No when he's setting the traps. I would be surprised if he was just a 32 inch inseam. His legs looked long, 34 inseam surely.
shaun i am only 5'9 or 5'10 but when i worked out at the gym and bulked up 2 years i had a 36 inseam. If i was connery height off 6'2 my inseam would be like over 40 maybe? Although its not often that you get 6'2 people who are mesomorphs its more average height guys like 5'10 who have that body type. generally tall or very tall people have ectomorphic body types and are hardgainers when it comes too muscle like clint eastwood or hugh jackman... people were shocked when i told them i had a inseam off 36. now that i have stopped working out my inseam is only 30.
i am not sure if connery was a classic mesomorph since he could look kinda lanky and slim at times. But yeah his muscular build could make him look shorter like 6'1 in his bond films such as from Russia with Love and Thunderball also that 6'9 guy made connery in you only live twice owned sean connery.
Shaun said on 21/Oct/11
That 3rd photo of Edgar's of Connery you'd be hard pushed claiming he looks lower than 6'2". Connery actually looks 189-190cm in that photo.
That 3rd photo of Edgar's of Connery you'd be hard pushed claiming he looks lower than 6'2". Connery actually looks 189-190cm in that photo.
rafa said on 21/Oct/11
"Bond tailors" => Ridicolous fan-website with no reliable sources. Viper, Connery was 6'2" or more, like it or not!
"Bond tailors" => Ridicolous fan-website with no reliable sources. Viper, Connery was 6'2" or more, like it or not!
EdgarHernandez said on 20/Oct/11
henrik lets see 2 people who are in the 6ft 2 range and see his proportions:
first sean connery
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
lee marvin:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
lee marvin was short legged, and it was noticiable, but in other side marvin had a very long head, connery is more leggy than marvin, there is one shot of marvin siting and he needs to bend his bad to his knees tuch the lower part of his torso( if you know a 5ft 10 with 30 inseam, you know this efect) for connery o cant find a photo with a perfect sideways angle but in most photos when he is sit, his knee come up to his shoulder very easy, i think shaun know what i am saying. also connery have a natural high waist and a peculiarity that i just notice is that cpnnery have a tibia as long as his femur, wich sometimes makes a short leg efect, plus, connery have very muscular legs, also this give other clue abaut his long legs, because connery have said that he lost the mr universe contest because he had bad calfs, alot of bodybuilder said that the longer your legs are, the harder is to put muscle on it, just ask shwarzenegger.
henrik lets see 2 people who are in the 6ft 2 range and see his proportions:
first sean connery
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
lee marvin:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
lee marvin was short legged, and it was noticiable, but in other side marvin had a very long head, connery is more leggy than marvin, there is one shot of marvin siting and he needs to bend his bad to his knees tuch the lower part of his torso( if you know a 5ft 10 with 30 inseam, you know this efect) for connery o cant find a photo with a perfect sideways angle but in most photos when he is sit, his knee come up to his shoulder very easy, i think shaun know what i am saying. also connery have a natural high waist and a peculiarity that i just notice is that cpnnery have a tibia as long as his femur, wich sometimes makes a short leg efect, plus, connery have very muscular legs, also this give other clue abaut his long legs, because connery have said that he lost the mr universe contest because he had bad calfs, alot of bodybuilder said that the longer your legs are, the harder is to put muscle on it, just ask shwarzenegger.
Shaun said on 20/Oct/11
Henrik says on 18/Oct/11
By the way, 32" inseam isn't THAT short for 6'2". There are some 6'4" guys who have a 34" inseam and they are usually not considered short-legged, as far as I know. Phelps has a 32" at 6'4.
I wrote that it's MORE COMMON for men up to the 6'1" range to have a 32" inseam and meant that if Connery really had a 32", it would support those who argue that he is and was 6'1" and change barefoot.
I'm this height range and I wear 34 inseams, and I'm big torso build opposed to very long legs and short body. 32 leg at 6'4" is unusually short for that height but they say Phelps has the torso length of a 6'8" guy and the legs of a 5'10" guy.
Henrik says on 18/Oct/11
By the way, 32" inseam isn't THAT short for 6'2". There are some 6'4" guys who have a 34" inseam and they are usually not considered short-legged, as far as I know. Phelps has a 32" at 6'4.
I wrote that it's MORE COMMON for men up to the 6'1" range to have a 32" inseam and meant that if Connery really had a 32", it would support those who argue that he is and was 6'1" and change barefoot.
I'm this height range and I wear 34 inseams, and I'm big torso build opposed to very long legs and short body. 32 leg at 6'4" is unusually short for that height but they say Phelps has the torso length of a 6'8" guy and the legs of a 5'10" guy.
Shaun said on 20/Oct/11
Connery was the classic mesomorph though wasn't he. He could look 220 pound range in recent decades although recently doesn't even look 200 as he's been ill I think) but if you watch Goldfinger for instance and him walking through the hotel corridor and in the hotel room in Dr. No when he's setting the traps. I would be surprised if he was just a 32 inch inseam. His legs looked long, 34 inseam surely.
Connery was the classic mesomorph though wasn't he. He could look 220 pound range in recent decades although recently doesn't even look 200 as he's been ill I think) but if you watch Goldfinger for instance and him walking through the hotel corridor and in the hotel room in Dr. No when he's setting the traps. I would be surprised if he was just a 32 inch inseam. His legs looked long, 34 inseam surely.
Henrik said on 20/Oct/11
My other post didn't get published. Matt Spaiser said that Connery had a long torso.
My other post didn't get published. Matt Spaiser said that Connery had a long torso.
Henrik said on 20/Oct/11
Perhaps it's more "scientific" than I thought. The author is Matt Spaiser, a graphic designer who supposedly has some insight in "Bond clothing":
Click Here
Perhaps it's more "scientific" than I thought. The author is Matt Spaiser, a graphic designer who supposedly has some insight in "Bond clothing":
Click Here
Henrik said on 20/Oct/11
Well, similar information seems to be found on other places, obviously not very scientific though:
"Sean Connery was 6'2.5" tall, and so probably would be a long length. I'd suspect his chest size is about a 44. It was popular in the 60s, as it is now, to cut the jacket on the shorter side. They were cut shorter to lengthen his legs because much of Connery's height is in his torso. That's one reason why his trousers had a very long rise. The key is to make the legs look the longest possible whilst still keeping everything proportionate. And I would believe that Connery has a 17" neck. Cary Grant had the same and he was skinnier than Connery."
Click Here
Well, similar information seems to be found on other places, obviously not very scientific though:
"Sean Connery was 6'2.5" tall, and so probably would be a long length. I'd suspect his chest size is about a 44. It was popular in the 60s, as it is now, to cut the jacket on the shorter side. They were cut shorter to lengthen his legs because much of Connery's height is in his torso. That's one reason why his trousers had a very long rise. The key is to make the legs look the longest possible whilst still keeping everything proportionate. And I would believe that Connery has a 17" neck. Cary Grant had the same and he was skinnier than Connery."
Click Here
thebad7 said on 19/Oct/11
@Henrik: Interesting where you found the 32" inseam. That guy is a dead ringer for Sir Sean!
He could be a 32" or a 34" inseam, but my best guess is the latter after seeing him in 1975's THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING. Towards the end of the film, Connery is dressed in a tunic, and there are several shots in which you see his bare legs; I knew he was tall, but I was shocked at how long his legs were after paying attention to it due to the activity at his page. As poster James said: he was, and still is "strong tall."
tb7
@Henrik: Interesting where you found the 32" inseam. That guy is a dead ringer for Sir Sean!
He could be a 32" or a 34" inseam, but my best guess is the latter after seeing him in 1975's THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING. Towards the end of the film, Connery is dressed in a tunic, and there are several shots in which you see his bare legs; I knew he was tall, but I was shocked at how long his legs were after paying attention to it due to the activity at his page. As poster James said: he was, and still is "strong tall."
tb7
EdgarHernandez said on 19/Oct/11
henrik, you realy trust in that site?, is from a sean connery look alike for god sake. also if he was measurament in that way, was from 60s stile of clothes that he wore in the bond films, where his pants were always at 2 inches above the heel of the shoe, where is not the real inseam.
henrik, you realy trust in that site?, is from a sean connery look alike for god sake. also if he was measurament in that way, was from 60s stile of clothes that he wore in the bond films, where his pants were always at 2 inches above the heel of the shoe, where is not the real inseam.
tell-em said on 18/Oct/11
Viper says on 14/Oct/11
Nic Cage has never seen 6-0 in his life. And there is no evidence of Ford being a solid 6-0 at peak.
Connery has never been 6-2, ever. Hes a 186cm guy.
sure there is, the mugshot from the fugitive.
Viper says on 14/Oct/11
Nic Cage has never seen 6-0 in his life. And there is no evidence of Ford being a solid 6-0 at peak.
Connery has never been 6-2, ever. Hes a 186cm guy.
sure there is, the mugshot from the fugitive.
Henrik said on 18/Oct/11
By the way, 32" inseam isn't THAT short for 6'2". There are some 6'4" guys who have a 34" inseam and they are usually not considered short-legged, as far as I know. Phelps has a 32" at 6'4.
I wrote that it's MORE COMMON for men up to the 6'1" range to have a 32" inseam and meant that if Connery really had a 32", it would support those who argue that he is and was 6'1" and change barefoot.
By the way, 32" inseam isn't THAT short for 6'2". There are some 6'4" guys who have a 34" inseam and they are usually not considered short-legged, as far as I know. Phelps has a 32" at 6'4.
I wrote that it's MORE COMMON for men up to the 6'1" range to have a 32" inseam and meant that if Connery really had a 32", it would support those who argue that he is and was 6'1" and change barefoot.
James said on 17/Oct/11
No doubt he was a tall man in his prime..not super tall by any means but still i would label him as 'strong tall'.
No doubt he was a tall man in his prime..not super tall by any means but still i would label him as 'strong tall'.
thebad7 said on 17/Oct/11
@Edgar: Nice article on the in's & out's of tailoring. Very informative. I agree with you: Connery is a 34 inseam for sure. Some people refuse to accept the fact that Connery is 6'2"+ and the man always looks it--from 1961's THE FRIGHTENED CITY up through to FINDING FORRESTER (late '90s, I think). I just watched him last night in 1975's THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING. He's a fraction (about 1/2") taller than 6'2" Michael Caine. This film is a good template because you see Connery in flat sandals or barefoot; wearing only a robe, you can see how long his legs are. Even in flat sandals, he's still a shade taller than Michael Caine. After watching this, I'd go with 6'2 1/2" peak for Sir Sean--his look in KING corresponds to that early '50s bodybuilding measurement.
tb7
@Edgar: Nice article on the in's & out's of tailoring. Very informative. I agree with you: Connery is a 34 inseam for sure. Some people refuse to accept the fact that Connery is 6'2"+ and the man always looks it--from 1961's THE FRIGHTENED CITY up through to FINDING FORRESTER (late '90s, I think). I just watched him last night in 1975's THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING. He's a fraction (about 1/2") taller than 6'2" Michael Caine. This film is a good template because you see Connery in flat sandals or barefoot; wearing only a robe, you can see how long his legs are. Even in flat sandals, he's still a shade taller than Michael Caine. After watching this, I'd go with 6'2 1/2" peak for Sir Sean--his look in KING corresponds to that early '50s bodybuilding measurement.
tb7
thebad7 said on 17/Oct/11
@Edgar: Nice article on the in's & out's of tailoring. Very informative. I agree with you: Connery is a 34 inseam for sure. Some people just don't get that Connery is 6'2"+ and the man always looks it. I just watched him last night in 1975's
@Edgar: Nice article on the in's & out's of tailoring. Very informative. I agree with you: Connery is a 34 inseam for sure. Some people just don't get that Connery is 6'2"+ and the man always looks it. I just watched him last night in 1975's
EdgarHernandez said on 16/Oct/11
Click Here
i dont know guys but this guy dont look a short legged guy, dont even a short guy, in fact looking the very short heel his shoes have(connery in fact after seeing alot of his photos is a fan of short heeled shoes), look to big to be just pierce brosnan size.
I also wear a 32 inseam, connery by no ways wears one.
Click Here
i dont know guys but this guy dont look a short legged guy, dont even a short guy, in fact looking the very short heel his shoes have(connery in fact after seeing alot of his photos is a fan of short heeled shoes), look to big to be just pierce brosnan size.
I also wear a 32 inseam, connery by no ways wears one.
EdgarHernandez said on 16/Oct/11
henrik abaut connery proportions, there is a very good article abaut that:
Click Here
it says cleary, that pierce brosnan requiered to have an extra 7 cms in his pnats to look more proportional(he will suit your phelps description much more than connery), and his jacked to be 4 shorter, the actual tailor of other james bond said that the suit make magic because he looked taller and as good as connery, despite the fact that the tailor claims that pierce brosnan was in fact shorter, now lets get this straight, pierce brosnan has been described as an strong 6ft 1(never 6ft 2) and the tailor describes brosnan as shorter, so connery must cleary taller to the actual tailor Angelo Petruccini.
also, the fashion of the time marks that the pants must be around 2 inches above the shoe, look alot of movies of the 60s and you will se that most pants of the time were made abaut 2 inches over the shoe, it was to match the fashion impoused by england.
here is sean with that kind pant cut:
Click Here
Click Here (made with a pair of jeans, i still dont know why make your legs apear short was in fashion in the 60s)
Click Here
also roger moore was regard as gaving very long legs, in fact this was the main reason why roger hate to run in bond movies, he know that his legs would instantaly show and he would look to goofy(he said that he looked like bambi)
Click Here
in this one they mention how bad the 70s fashion was for poor moore, bause the fashion stile of high waist pants make him look even more out of proportion
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
is posible to hide long legs with a long jacked or with a fake inseam(like clint eastwood did in a few of his dirty harry movies) like this one.
Click Here
showed by roger moore,
or this one showed bi clint eastwood(the clint eastwood one is less than subtle)
Click Here
in both cases the ilusion is broked as soon you bend, sit or run(moore tried to avoid this, clint wasnt that lucky and he dumped the idea by the end of the 70s)
as for connery he looked to me like he had an 34 inseam, but connery unlike roger moore, had muscular legs(he was bodybuilder) while moore had long skinny legs
henrik abaut connery proportions, there is a very good article abaut that:
Click Here
it says cleary, that pierce brosnan requiered to have an extra 7 cms in his pnats to look more proportional(he will suit your phelps description much more than connery), and his jacked to be 4 shorter, the actual tailor of other james bond said that the suit make magic because he looked taller and as good as connery, despite the fact that the tailor claims that pierce brosnan was in fact shorter, now lets get this straight, pierce brosnan has been described as an strong 6ft 1(never 6ft 2) and the tailor describes brosnan as shorter, so connery must cleary taller to the actual tailor Angelo Petruccini.
also, the fashion of the time marks that the pants must be around 2 inches above the shoe, look alot of movies of the 60s and you will se that most pants of the time were made abaut 2 inches over the shoe, it was to match the fashion impoused by england.
here is sean with that kind pant cut:
Click Here
Click Here (made with a pair of jeans, i still dont know why make your legs apear short was in fashion in the 60s)
Click Here
also roger moore was regard as gaving very long legs, in fact this was the main reason why roger hate to run in bond movies, he know that his legs would instantaly show and he would look to goofy(he said that he looked like bambi)
Click Here
in this one they mention how bad the 70s fashion was for poor moore, bause the fashion stile of high waist pants make him look even more out of proportion
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
is posible to hide long legs with a long jacked or with a fake inseam(like clint eastwood did in a few of his dirty harry movies) like this one.
Click Here
showed by roger moore,
or this one showed bi clint eastwood(the clint eastwood one is less than subtle)
Click Here
in both cases the ilusion is broked as soon you bend, sit or run(moore tried to avoid this, clint wasnt that lucky and he dumped the idea by the end of the 70s)
as for connery he looked to me like he had an 34 inseam, but connery unlike roger moore, had muscular legs(he was bodybuilder) while moore had long skinny legs
James said on 16/Oct/11
Nicholas Cage and Harrison were probably both exactley the same height 'weak 6'1'
Nicholas Cage and Harrison were probably both exactley the same height 'weak 6'1'
Viper said on 16/Oct/11
Nice upgrading James
Nice upgrading James
Henrik said on 15/Oct/11
It could be noted (but it might have been already, I know that tailors have been mentioned and discussed a lot) that Connery supposedly has a 32 pants inseam. This is quite short for a strong 6'2" and more proportionate for men up to the 6'1" range, I suppose. 6'2"-6'3" men usually have a 34 inseam, as far as I know. But I guess there are exceptions, and that Connery might be a Michael Phelps Sr?
It could be noted (but it might have been already, I know that tailors have been mentioned and discussed a lot) that Connery supposedly has a 32 pants inseam. This is quite short for a strong 6'2" and more proportionate for men up to the 6'1" range, I suppose. 6'2"-6'3" men usually have a 34 inseam, as far as I know. But I guess there are exceptions, and that Connery might be a Michael Phelps Sr?
EdgarHernandez said on 15/Oct/11
viper you are becoming laugable, if you put cage to 5ft 11(never seen 6ft in his live like you said), and harrison for at 6ft flat, my friend i dont know what kind angle you look the pictures and photos.
viper you are becoming laugable, if you put cage to 5ft 11(never seen 6ft in his live like you said), and harrison for at 6ft flat, my friend i dont know what kind angle you look the pictures and photos.
James said on 15/Oct/11
In the Rock
Nicholas Cage 6'0.5 (184cm)
Sean Connery 6'2 (188cm)
Harrison Ford was a strong 6ft in 1989
In the Rock
Nicholas Cage 6'0.5 (184cm)
Sean Connery 6'2 (188cm)
Harrison Ford was a strong 6ft in 1989
Viper said on 14/Oct/11
Nic Cage has never seen 6-0 in his life. And there is no evidence of Ford being a solid 6-0 at peak.
Connery has never been 6-2, ever. Hes a 186cm guy.
Nic Cage has never seen 6-0 in his life. And there is no evidence of Ford being a solid 6-0 at peak.
Connery has never been 6-2, ever. Hes a 186cm guy.
tell-em said on 14/Oct/11
harrison ford was a solid 6'0" man at his peak. connery also had 2 inches on 6'0" nic cage in the rock. connery under 6'2" just doesn't add up.
harrison ford was a solid 6'0" man at his peak. connery also had 2 inches on 6'0" nic cage in the rock. connery under 6'2" just doesn't add up.
James said on 14/Oct/11
BS Viper he looked 6'2 well into the 90's as well.
BS Viper he looked 6'2 well into the 90's as well.
Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.
Other vital statistics like weight or shoe size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.
Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.