|
James says 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
Henrik says 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 Henrik says 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. James says 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
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 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. James says on 16/Dec/11
he could pass for 6'2 though in goldfinger Ivan says 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 7/Dec/11
did look 6'3 in diamonds are forever Lenad is sexy says on 5/Dec/11
185cm now. 188cm peak Shaun says 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. James says 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. LAN Jiao says 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. 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 bad he is fully in retirement.
tb7 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. James says on 5/Nov/11
do u guys agree that in russia with love connery looked like 6'1? Shaun says on 5/Nov/11
Roch looks 240-250 pounds. Connery looks about 210 pounds in that film. EdgarHernandez says 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). James says 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. James says 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? EdgarHernandez says 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 James says 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 says 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? Shaun says 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". Shaun says 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. Shaun says 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... Shaun says 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!! Ivan says 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 James says 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? Henrik says 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 says 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. James says on 24/Oct/11
Was sean connery maybe just stating his current height in 1996 on the jay leno show? Ray says 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 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 says 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 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. rafa says on 21/Oct/11
"Bond tailors" => Ridicolous fan-website with no reliable sources. Viper, Connery was 6'2" or more, like it or not! EdgarHernandez says 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 says on 20/Oct/11
Shaun, here is a chart for what is considered "normal": Click Here Shaun says 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. 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. Henrik says on 20/Oct/11
My other post didn't get published. Matt Spaiser said that Connery had a long torso. Henrik says 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 Henrik says 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 thebad7 says 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 EdgarHernandez says 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. tell-em says 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. 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. Henrik says on 18/Oct/11
This is the site that claims Connery to have a 32" inseam: Click Here James says 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'. thebad7 says 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 thebad7 says 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 EdgarHernandez says 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. EdgarHernandez says 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 James says on 16/Oct/11
Nicholas Cage and Harrison were probably both exactley the same height 'weak 6'1' Viper says on 16/Oct/11
Nice upgrading James Henrik says 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? EdgarHernandez says 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. James says 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 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. tell-em says 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. James says on 14/Oct/11
BS Viper he looked 6'2 well into the 90's as well. Viper says on 13/Oct/11
Viper says on 12/Oct/11
186-187 peak and 184 today
Viper says on 12/Oct/11
Im way more inclined to believe the Bond Tailors stuff because he flat out didnt look 6-2 plus. Its as simple as that.
miko says on 12/Oct/11
I can buy 6'2.4 out of bed, but as for his real height, he always looked nothing more than a solid 6'1. (Maybe around 6'1.5 daytime).
Looks more 6'0.5 today. Lost an inch or so.
No way was he ever 6-2 plus out of bed. Yes, I agree with 6-0.5 on his current height. thebad7 says on 13/Oct/11
NO,NO, NO Viper. It's not as simple as that. You're blind and you have a problem with tall guys. Connery was never less than 6'2" as a young man. The Bond Tailors BS is exactly that--BS. They refuse to confirm whether or not he was measured at said height; why should anybody believe them if they're going to play that silly game. The man always looked 6'3" in dress shoes in all his films--from the '60s well into the '90s. Furthermore, he's always been noticeably taller than 6'0" and 6'1" men and he holds his own against very tall men (6'2" - 6'4" range). You might as well get over the fact that Sean Connery was--and still is--a tall guy. Deal with it.
@Ka: Agreed. He has about 2" on Harrison Ford in LAST CRUSADE--and he was 59 at the time! He had 1" to 1.5" on 6'1" Kevin Costner in THE UNTOUCHABLES from '87, and he had 6'0" Mark Harmon by 2" in 1988's THE PRESIDIO.
tb7 Ka says on 13/Oct/11
[Editor Rob: I'm not as sure about this 6ft 2.4, whether it was in trainers or barefoot or if it was legit.]
Though there is no details into this measurement, don't you think there is some truth in this measurement? For starter, at peak Sean has to be right on the 6'2 mark. Look at him next to Harrison Ford on The Last Crusade at almost 60 yrs old
Rob, which is more likely. 188, 189, or 186.7 cm at peak?
[Editor Rob: I know there is the 6ft 1.5 been mentioned aswell, but I'm not sure if anyone has ever managed to find a clip or record of that one, both are elusive!] Viper says on 12/Oct/11
186-187 peak and 184 today Viper says on 12/Oct/11
Im way more inclined to believe the Bond Tailors stuff because he flat out didnt look 6-2 plus. Its as simple as that. miko says on 12/Oct/11
I can buy 6'2.4 out of bed, but as for his real height, he always looked nothing more than a solid 6'1. (Maybe around 6'1.5 daytime).
Looks more 6'0.5 today. Lost an inch or so. James says on 12/Oct/11
thebad7 says on 10/Oct/11
@James: I don't know if I'd go so high as 6'3" for Connery out of bed as a young man. I would say 6'2 1/2" for sure and even well into older age. As mentioned, the 6'2 1/2" measurement carries more weight for me as it was done barefoot for his Mr. Universe competition. Either way, you've seen the films yourself: he was and still is a tall man.
tb7
If he was truely 6'2 1/2 then he would be around 6'3 out off bed. Ka says on 11/Oct/11
Rob, at what time of the day do you think the 6'2.4 measurement for Sean was done, like 2 hours out of bed? Maybe 6'2.25 at peak?
[Editor Rob: I'm not as sure about this 6ft 2.4, whether it was in trainers or barefoot or if it was legit.] thebad7 says on 10/Oct/11
@James: I don't know if I'd go so high as 6'3" for Connery out of bed as a young man. I would say 6'2 1/2" for sure and even well into older age. As mentioned, the 6'2 1/2" measurement carries more weight for me as it was done barefoot for his Mr. Universe competition. Either way, you've seen the films yourself: he was and still is a tall man.
tb7 Viper says on 10/Oct/11
6-1 and change was this guys peak height. I reckon the 6-1.5 measurement by the Bond tailors was in the morning. James says on 7/Oct/11
thebad7 says on 5/Oct/11
@James: You mentioned it before: he's kept his height. He's not like Clint Eastwood--a man who's shrunk a good bit over the years. I agree with you: in his prime, Sean Connery was a strong 6'2" man. I place more value in the barefoot measurement taken for him during his bodybuilding days: he was close to 6'2 1/2". Easily over flat 6'2". Also, I agree with you with regard to Carrey, Ford, and Cage. Even with Carrey, however, I thought that Connery had a slight edge. Bottom line: today, 6'2" out of bed, and strong 6'1" territory for the bulk of the day.
Funny note: while watching THE ANDERSON TAPES, there is an early scene in which government agents conduct a surveillance operation against Duke Anderson (Connery). As he enters a Manhattan apartment building, an agent relays intelligence through his radio to HQ, and describes Duke as being "tall, six-three." I've seen too many films--just watch any Bond film he's in--where Connery is easily 6'3" in shoes.
tb7
maybe 6'3 out off bed in younger days? thebad7 says on 7/Oct/11
Jiao: This is as good as the tripe you posted at Benicio Del Toro's page. Larry Fishburne is a weak 6'0" at best--he's more like 5'11. Connery was always 6'3" in dress shoes--be it Bond films or otherwise. Easy 6'2" barefoot. Get glasses and get over your beef with tall guys. Connery was a tall young man, and even today at 81, he's still tall.
tb7 thebad7 says on 6/Oct/11
WRONG, Viper. As per your norm.
tb7 LAN Jiao says on 6/Oct/11
sean connery did't look much taller than solid 6ft lawrence fisburne in 1995 just causes. 6ft1 flat to go. Viper says on 5/Oct/11
LOL, hes never seen 6-2 in his life.
Always been 6-1 rafa says on 5/Oct/11
This guy was clearly over 6'2" in his younger days, like it or not. thebad7 says on 5/Oct/11
@James: You mentioned it before: he's kept his height. He's not like Clint Eastwood--a man who's shrunk a good bit over the years. I agree with you: in his prime, Sean Connery was a strong 6'2" man. I place more value in the barefoot measurement taken for him during his bodybuilding days: he was close to 6'2 1/2". Easily over flat 6'2". Also, I agree with you with regard to Carrey, Ford, and Cage. Even with Carrey, however, I thought that Connery had a slight edge. Bottom line: today, 6'2" out of bed, and strong 6'1" territory for the bulk of the day.
Funny note: while watching THE ANDERSON TAPES, there is an early scene in which government agents conduct a surveillance operation against Duke Anderson (Connery). As he enters a Manhattan apartment building, an agent relays intelligence through his radio to HQ, and describes Duke as being "tall, six-three." I've seen too many films--just watch any Bond film he's in--where Connery is easily 6'3" in shoes.
tb7 Iv 6\'2.75 says on 5/Oct/11
Sean Connery looks 6'1.5 beside 6'1.25 Charles Gray, 6'2.4 is supposed to be in the morning Iv 6\'2.75 says on 5/Oct/11
The James Bond tailor in his prime describe him as tall as 6'1.5. In his last Bond movie "Diamond are forever", he had 1 cm taller than 186 cm Charles Gray James says on 4/Oct/11
thebad7 says on 3/Oct/11
@James: In those pics that I saw from around 2008, I thought he was still close to the 6'2" mark--bare minimum 6'1 1/2" as you observed. Today, in 2011, I'd guess 6'2" in the morning hours and probably a strong 6'1" throughout the afternoon and into the evening.
FYI: I watched Sir Sean in 1971's THE ANDERSON TAPES this past Saturday. Next to a young Christopher Walken, whom I believe to be 6'1" as a young man, Connery had him by at least 1", maybe close to 1 1/2". In his younger days, Connery was easily 6'2"+.
tb7
tb7
also he does look the same height as jim carrey who is listed on this site as 6'1 1/2. he always look noticibly taller than 6ft harrison ford and 6ft 1/2 nicholas cage so i think even in quite recent times still close too 6'2 maybe?
high chance on his best day in his prime might have measured over a flat 6'2 James says on 3/Oct/11
Eastwood was near 6'5 out off bed in his younger days. thebad7 says on 3/Oct/11
@James: In those pics that I saw from around 2008, I thought he was still close to the 6'2" mark--bare minimum 6'1 1/2" as you observed. Today, in 2011, I'd guess 6'2" in the morning hours and probably a strong 6'1" throughout the afternoon and into the evening.
FYI: I watched Sir Sean in 1971's THE ANDERSON TAPES this past Saturday. Next to a young Christopher Walken, whom I believe to be 6'1" as a young man, Connery had him by at least 1", maybe close to 1 1/2". In his younger days, Connery was easily 6'2"+.
tb7
tb7 Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 2/Oct/11
6"2.25(189cm) in his prime is probably spot on.
Forget 6"1.5 peak. That's bogus. Today he's probably around that height though James says on 30/Sep/11
thebad7 what do you think 185 or 186cm these days? i think 5 years ago he looked 187cm. Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 30/Sep/11
Eastwood only hit 6"4 out of bed in his younger years. thebad7 says on 28/Sep/11
I wanted to mention this here since it's been a recent topic on Clint Eastwood's page. Several posters have written they consider the supposed 6'1 1/2" measurement by the Bond tailors to be dubious, and I agree them. Forget the 6'1 1/2" nonsense claimed by the Bond tailors. Connery was a tall, well-built man when younger, and even now at 81, he looks fantastic. Anything less than 6'2" for him as a young man is a joke, and he's kept his height well into advanced age. I have read, too, like others, that in his bodybuilding days he was measured barefoot at almost 6'2 1/2" barefoot, and I can buy that since he's always been noticeably taller than men who are six flat or 6'1". Even today, I think he's still close to the 6'2" mark and probably in the strong 6'1" range by the time night falls.
tb7 James says on 25/Sep/11
Donald sutherland 6'4 (193cm)
Sean Connery 6'2 (188cm)
again this proves my theory that clint eastwood could have been a fraction over 6'4. Shaun says on 24/Sep/11
Watch the film Edgar, Sutherland had no less than 2 inches on Connery. EdgarHernandez says on 23/Sep/11
again shaun. the angle in that photo is horrible. Shaun says on 23/Sep/11
Click Here
That's easily two inches. A 6'2.5" Connery would equal at least a 6'4.5" Sutherland and a 6'5" Eastwood. Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 19/Sep/11
6"2(188cm) out of bed today... thebad7 says on 19/Sep/11
James says on 17/Sep/11
In circa 08 probably 6'1 (185cm) or 186cm at best.
@James: I can buy that.
tb7 James says on 17/Sep/11
thebad7 says on 15/Sep/11
@James: That I do agree with. As mentioned, the most recent pictures that I saw of Sir Sean--circa 2008--showed him to have pretty much kept the height.
tb7
In circa 08 probably 6'1 (185cm) or 186cm at best. thebad7 says on 15/Sep/11
@James: That I do agree with. As mentioned, the most recent pictures that I saw of Sir Sean--circa 2008--showed him to have pretty much kept the height.
tb7 James says on 13/Sep/11
thebad7 yeah i think 189cm is not impossible for his peak although i think sean connery stayed around 6'2 for DECADES much longer than clint eastwood stayed at his peak off 6'4.
In the Untouchables.
Sean Connery 6'2 (188cm)
Kevin Costner 6'1.25 (186cm) thebad7 says on 12/Sep/11
Watched him recently in two films: 1987's THE UNTOUCHABLES and 1964's MARNIE. This worked out well because I caught him in both the early and later stages of his career. In '64 for MARNIE, he was wearing dress shoes, and he looked to be an easy 6'3" in shoes. Likewise, by age 57 in THE UNTOUCHABLES, he still looked tall--he had an inch & change on 6'1" Kevin Costner, and both were wearing like footwear. Barefoot as a young man, Sean Connery was a strong 6'2"; I could buy as high as 6'2 1/2" for him barefoot. In fact, I think poster Shaun said something about this on Lee Van Cleef's page, and I agree with his comment: Connery's body type reminds me of Van Cleef's and I think he looks the same height on screen as did Van Cleef--who was himself a strong 6'2" man. Connery has always looked tall in his films, and although I haven't seen recent pictures of him, the most recent pictures that I have seen--circa 2007/2008--indicate that he's still close to the 6'2" mark. I think it's a safe bet that Connery is at least to this day still 6'2" at least during the morning hours. He has aged very well.
tb7 James says on 10/Sep/11
184-185cm today.
Strong 188cm peak Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 9/Sep/11
187-188cm out of bed today James says on 3/Sep/11
Shaun says on 3/Sep/11
James says on 2/Sep/11
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 28/Aug/11
James says on 25/Aug/11
6'3 out off bed at peak
Definitely...
In the 1960's
Out off bed: 6'2.75 (190cm)
Early morning: 6'2.75 (190cm)
Mid-Morning: 6'2.5 (189cm)
Lunchtime: 6'2.5 (189cm)
Afternoon: 6'2.25 (189cm)
Evening: 6'2.25 (189cm)
Night: 6'2 (188cm)
Eh,they measured him barefoot at 6'1.5" in the 1960s. 6'2" night height is BS. Midday maybe. 6'2.5" morning.
Don't agree since he had an edge on Michael Caine and was measured in bodybuilding at 189cm.
Click Here
Connery was a strong 6'2 but he was not 6'3. Still looks 6'1 in recent years.
So in 1975
Michael Caine 6'2 (188cm)
Sean Connery 6'2.25 (189cm)
With 184cm Nicholas Cage in 1996 Connery was still a solid 6'2 (188cm)
Click Here
In 2006 with Cage 186-187cm range
Click Here
Notice as well that cage always has bad posture with connery Shaun says on 3/Sep/11
James says on 2/Sep/11
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 28/Aug/11
James says on 25/Aug/11
6'3 out off bed at peak
Definitely...
In the 1960's
Out off bed: 6'2.75 (190cm)
Early morning: 6'2.75 (190cm)
Mid-Morning: 6'2.5 (189cm)
Lunchtime: 6'2.5 (189cm)
Afternoon: 6'2.25 (189cm)
Evening: 6'2.25 (189cm)
Night: 6'2 (188cm)
Eh,they measured him barefoot at 6'1.5" in the 1960s. 6'2" night height is BS. Midday maybe. 6'2.5" morning. James says on 2/Sep/11
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 28/Aug/11
James says on 25/Aug/11
6'3 out off bed at peak
Definitely...
In the 1960's
Out off bed: 6'2.75 (190cm)
Early morning: 6'2.75 (190cm)
Mid-Morning: 6'2.5 (189cm)
Lunchtime: 6'2.5 (189cm)
Afternoon: 6'2.25 (189cm)
Evening: 6'2.25 (189cm)
Night: 6'2 (188cm) Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 28/Aug/11
James says on 25/Aug/11
6'3 out off bed at peak
Definitely... James says on 25/Aug/11
6'3 out off bed at peak James says on 24/Aug/11
Yeah Crichton looks taller than 6'9 next too 188cm Sean Connery and 184cm Nicholas Cage. anon says on 24/Aug/11
Connery clearly has several inches on Cage in that photo. Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 22/Aug/11
My bad, guys Shaun says on 21/Aug/11
Crichton also claimed 6'10" remember. To me does look than range next to Connery, minimum 6'9" anyway. Shaun says on 21/Aug/11
That;s Daryl Hannah LOL not Nicole Kidman us says on 20/Aug/11
that is daryl hannah and she is also tall at 178 cm Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 5/Aug/11
Right, 6ft1/185cm today is fair James says on 2/Aug/11
Connery is probably still 185cm today and maybe 186cm 3 years ago?
He has not lost that much height. EdgarHernandez says on 31/Jul/11
Cas, connery is just playing around with poor johnny depp,
Click Here
look the shoes of sean connery, now look this shot of the shoes of johnny depp:
Click Here
and this one:
Click Here
Those are some monsters, shoes that stallone will be pround, i think even connery knows that and he was playing around triying to make depp look taller(just look how he plays with depp). Cas says on 30/Jul/11
He may have been 189 back then.But by now he lost a lot of height.
For example these picture with 175-176cm tall Johnny Depp.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
I would say he is 184cm now. James says on 24/Jul/11
jake says on 23/Jul/11
You're absolutely right James, Connery looks eight inches shorter than Crichton here and appears slightly taller than 6ft Nicolas Cage. He's 6ft1 and no taller than that. 6ft2.25 peak.
Cage i'd estimate to be about 6ft 1/2 (184cm) and I think Connery still looks 6'2 (188cm) in that photo compared to Nicholas.
I am convinced that connery was probably a strong 6'2 peak like 6'2.25. Connery was a weak 6'2.5 if that makes any sense?
Impressive that Connery has not lost much height. jake says on 23/Jul/11
You're absolutely right James, Connery looks eight inches shorter than Crichton here and appears slightly taller than 6ft Nicolas Cage. He's 6ft1 and no taller than that. 6ft2.25 peak. James says on 22/Jul/11
with 6'9 michael crichton
Click Here James says on 18/Jul/11
6'1 (185cm) today. Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 17/Jul/11
I still think he's 6ft1 range now...
186cm or 187cm jake says on 16/Jul/11
Connery was a strong 6ft2 at peak but at 81 I think he's only a hair over 6ft.
Peak Height: 6ft2.25 (189cm)
Current Height: 6ft0.25 (184 cm) James says on 15/Jul/11
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 14/Jul/11
Connery is one of those guys who keeps himself in good shape and therefore only experiences minimal height loss. In the 60s and 70s he looked like a big 6ft2+ guy.
Not always look at Clint Eastwood who was close to 6'5 at his peak and he kept himself in very good shape as he got older yet he dropped from a strong 6'4 to a flat 6'3 during the 1970's and these days might only be 6'0.
Connery in comparison has only lost 1.25 from his peak height not quite as dramatic as clint. Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 14/Jul/11
Connery is one of those guys who keeps himself in good shape and therefore only experiences minimal height loss. In the 60s and 70s he looked like a big 6ft2+ guy. Shaun says on 13/Jul/11
I'm reading his biography at the moment. It said his father, Jospeh, was only 5 ft 8 and a muscular 180 pounds but described his mother as "statuesque" so I presume he got his height from his mother. Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 9/Jul/11
At peak
190cm morning
189cm afternoon
188cm evening rafa says on 1/Jul/11
Terryman says on 28/Jun/11
did n't the bond tailors measure him at 1,87 meters? I'm all confused now!
There is no reliable source about that, the "resource" is fan-website that claims that but I dont trust that.
And he looked 6'2"+ in his youth, possibly peak 6'2" and now around 185-186 cms James says on 28/Jun/11
Maybe Sutherland was more like 1.5 inches taller than connery? Terryman says on 28/Jun/11
did n't the bond tailors measure him at 1,87 meters? I'm all confused now! James says on 27/Jun/11
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 25/Jun/11
Looked 6ft3 in The Rock opposite 6ft Nicholas Cage
Indeed he did but he didn't look 6'3 in the bond films or Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 25/Jun/11
Looked 6ft3 in The Rock opposite 6ft Nicholas Cage James says on 25/Jun/11
i don't know about 189cm but i guess i could buy 188cm for his peak. TruebloodFan says on 23/Jun/11
@Brad says on 7/Jun/11
As listed. Strong 6' 2". In Diamonds Are Forever he looks 6 feet 3. All the Bond girls I spoke with said 6 feet 2. I saw him at The Bellagio a few years ago, slight forward bend to his upper back, still over 6' with ease.
Agreed Brad. He looked 6ft3 in 'The Longest Day' as well. Ka says on 23/Jun/11
Legit 6'2 at peak on screen, which matches up to the 6'2.4 bodybuilding measurement. Of course it's a barefoot measurement, like bodybuilder put shoes on shows. At worse it's a 9-10 am measurement, and still he'd still around 6'2 or a fraction over at night. I'm not saying 187 peak is improbable, but I've seen his recent movies and picture, and this man still looks 6'1, so he has to be strong 6'2 peak
IMO the best Bond so far Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 22/Jun/11
Looked slightly taller than Jim Carrey in 2008 James says on 22/Jun/11
I don't think he was over 185cm in '08. Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 22/Jun/11
I buy 187cm now and 189cm peak Lenad is sexy says on 22/Jun/11
185cm now 188cm peak. 184cm now 187cm peak i can buy as well Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 20/Jun/11
186-187cm in '08. Still that tall now James says on 18/Jun/11
EdgarHernandez says on 17/Jun/11
James: i saw the shot for all his variations, those are the exact same shoes that he wore whit jonny depp in the photo of the 2 together, jim carry in the other hand i wearing boots whit a thick heel, sean connery for my surprise in almost all the photos is wearing very light shoes, whit little to no heel, he uviusly like comfort before stile(wich i think is an smart choice)
i am not sure about that because that would mean connery is still potentially 6'2 in 2008 which is unlikely Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 18/Jun/11
Has lost a good inch by 80, there's no denying that.
But that's a vert small amount considering most men his age lose on average 2-3in.
6ft2.5(189cm) peak and now 186-187cm EdgarHernandez says on 17/Jun/11
James: i saw the shot for all his variations, those are the exact same shoes that he wore whit jonny depp in the photo of the 2 together, jim carry in the other hand i wearing boots whit a thick heel, sean connery for my surprise in almost all the photos is wearing very light shoes, whit little to no heel, he uviusly like comfort before stile(wich i think is an smart choice) James says on 17/Jun/11
connery has footware advantage and is standing better than carrey in that shot. rafa says on 17/Jun/11
Click Here
He looks taller than 6'1.5" Jim Carrey here, the pic is from 2008.
The 6'2.4" from his youth fits perfectly in my opinion. James says on 16/Jun/11
Connery still looked 185cm or at worst 184cm next to his son in 2008. Lenad is sexy says on 16/Jun/11
Jason is listed at a solid 5ft11. But i dont think hes under 5ft11. James says on 15/Jun/11
no he's not he is listed at 5'11 Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 14/Jun/11
Lenad, you know Jason Connery is listed as 6ft and can look close to it. James says on 14/Jun/11
looked under 6'2 in Thunderball at times Lenad is sexy says on 13/Jun/11
Looks at most 2 inches taller than his son now Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 12/Jun/11
189cm peak
187cm now Lenad is sexy says on 11/Jun/11
solid 188cm peak. Today 185cm Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 11/Jun/11
6ft3 out of bed James says on 7/Jun/11
Brad says on 7/Jun/11
As listed. Strong 6' 2". In Diamonds Are Forever he looks 6 feet 3. All the Bond girls I spoke with said 6 feet 2. I saw him at The Bellagio a few years ago, slight forward bend to his upper back, still over 6' with ease.
Did not always look it in his bond films. haven't seen diamonds are forver in a long time.
Brad so you think he could have been 6'3 then? Viper says on 7/Jun/11
6-1 and change guy MAX Brad says on 7/Jun/11
As listed. Strong 6' 2". In Diamonds Are Forever he looks 6 feet 3. All the Bond girls I spoke with said 6 feet 2. I saw him at The Bellagio a few years ago, slight forward bend to his upper back, still over 6' with ease. Cranberries says on 6/Jun/11
He's looking closer to the height of Jason Connery, his 5'11" son, these days.
Connery never looked especially big or imposing to me. Had a build that made him look taller than he really was, but I recognized him as 6'1"-6'2" and a slim 180 lbs. in Dr. No and Diamonds Are Forever.
Click Here Viper says on 6/Jun/11
Rampage thinks everyone is taller than what they really are, lol. James says on 6/Jun/11
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 6/Jun/11
In his later career he could even look over 6ft2...
next to Nicholas Cage in the Rock yes i would agree with you on that one. walter says on 6/Jun/11
i will try to look after the photo,james,and put it on here Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 6/Jun/11
In his later career he could even look over 6ft2... James says on 3/Jun/11
A man who is a legit 6'2.5 (189cm) will probably give of a very tall impression on screen, esspecially if he has a bodybuilder type of frame.
Now Sean Connery is a legit tall but he never looked very tall and imposing in his bond films. that is only one of the reasons why i think connery might have been closer to 187cm than 189cm which i understand is probably a little biased in my part.
then again that said it can all depend on your body type really..... Mario says on 3/Jun/11
How can you say that when we don't even have solid information about the heights of most his co-stars and lesser known actors of his bond pictures? To me it's pretty obvious that he wasn't any close 6 ft 1, since he had always a considerable height advantage over legitimate 6 ft 1 guy's and looks similar in height next to other 6 ft 2-2,5 actors, even in the 90s. James says on 2/Jun/11
rafa says on 1/Jun/11
James what I have to do to convince you that Sean Connery was over 6'2"
Okay i am not saying that its impossible that he wasn't over 6'2 but he just does not look it in his early bond films thats all. rafa says on 1/Jun/11
James what I have to do to convince you that Sean Connery was over 6'2" James says on 1/Jun/11
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 1/Jun/11
Don't buy Jim Carrey being 184cm, that's bunk. I think he's closer to 6ft2. Connery in his prime I still believe was a little over the 6ft2 mark.
Didn't seem more than 6'1 in Goldfinger and Russia with Love Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 1/Jun/11
Don't buy Jim Carrey being 184cm, that's bunk. I think he's closer to 6ft2. Connery in his prime I still believe was a little over the 6ft2 mark. Viper says on 31/May/11
Yes James, he never looked taller than 6-1 in the Bond films. 6-1 was his height. James says on 31/May/11
rafa says on 31/May/11
James, in his young days Connery clearly surpassed 6'2", and remeber the pics of him with Jim Carrey, Connery was at an advanced age and was about Jim's same height of 6'1.5". Connery CLEARLY SURPASSED 6'2" in his youth.
Some are saying that Carrey is 184cm. Mr. Kaplan says on 31/May/11
Caine was 6'1" peak. Not 6'2". Watch "Sleuth". He's with a 65 year old Olivier who was 5'10" peak, and he doesn't look more than 3 inches taller. Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 31/May/11
Well James, I have suggested on the Michael Caine page that maybe it wouldn't hurt to give his peak as 6ft1.75. I know on face of it, quabbling over a quarter of an inch looks a kinda retarded. But it's the accuracy thats driving force behind this whole shindig. Like how often has Caine throughout his career appeared 6ft2? seldomly rafa says on 31/May/11
James, in his young days Connery clearly surpassed 6'2", and remeber the pics of him with Jim Carrey, Connery was at an advanced age and was about Jim's same height of 6'1.5". Connery CLEARLY SURPASSED 6'2" in his youth. James says on 29/May/11
michale caine being 6'2 is debatable becuae Frank2 i think stated that Caine was more 6'1 at his peak. Also in the picture connery is closer to the camera....
so it could be
Sean Connery 6'1.5 (187cm) peak Today 6'0.5 (184cm)
Michael Caine 6'1.25 (186cm) peak Today 6'0 (183cm)
Both have only really lost 1 inch from there peak heights. Not bad compared to Clint Eastwood or James Garner. Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 28/May/11
Connery is closer to the camera and also looks intoxicated.
I think at that time Connery was 6ft2.25(189cm) and Caine was 6ft1.75(187cm) rafa says on 26/May/11
Click Here
Here Connery looks 6'2" minimum, with Michael Caine who looks a solid 6'2" to me.
In my opinion there is no doubt he was a solid 6'2" James says on 25/May/11
care to post the photo walter? walter says on 24/May/11
his wax statue in madame tussauds museum in london is like 1/2 inch taller than me(i took a photo with the statue in 1998),i am 6'1. Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 24/May/11
6"2.4(189cm) prime rafa says on 23/May/11
Bonda tailors, bond tailors, bond tailors... There is ABSOLUTELY NO RELIABLE source of this "Bond tailors".
Bond taylors my arse viper. Always repeating the same thing. Taylors don't measure heights, they base their approximation of the clients height based on the "measured clothes".
Where'd u get that info abt bond taylors blah blah, fr0m some fan-based-unofficial website? Sum1 sh0wd at an email in an earlier post that they don't disclose those data such as height.
Where's your proof that body builders were measured with sh0es on? Plain stupid. LMA0
True.
ats the problem of Sean Connery being a 188-189 cms guy? He looked that tall in his early films James says on 22/May/11
i don't think he was 6'2.5 becuase he was also 2 inches shorter than donald sutherland who probably was not even 6'4 at his peak.
i am sorry but i think 189cm is very unlikey for connery. Larry says on 22/May/11
He was a solid 6 1 no doubt, he was barefoot countless times as Bond, but I just see that he was a full 6 2. 6 1.5 seems completely fair wtf says on 21/May/11
Bond taylors my arse viper. Always repeating the same thing. Taylors don't measure heights, they base their approximation of the clients height based on the "measured clothes".
Where'd u get that info abt bond taylors blah blah, fr0m some fan-based-unofficial website? Sum1 sh0wd at an email in an earlier post that they don't disclose those data such as height.
Where's your proof that body builders were measured with sh0es on? Plain stupid. LMA0 rafa says on 21/May/11
Viper says on 20/May/11
LOL, he was measured 6-2 in shoes. Bond Tailors measured him at 6-1.5
Nope, in bodybulding competitions is very unprobable that they measure with shoes, more likely he got measured barefoot. Please understand it. And that "Bond Tailors" argument is crap, that website was not a very reliable source. Is more reliable the 6'2.4" measurement Rob knows. James says on 20/May/11
connery looked between 6'1-6'2 for sure in his bond films from the 1960's. Viper says on 20/May/11
LOL, he was measured 6-2 in shoes. Bond Tailors measured him at 6-1.5 rafa says on 19/May/11
Larry says on 18/May/11
The guy who played Q in james bond always looked at least a half an inch if not an inch taller than Connery and he's also listed at 6 2 so Connery peack was at least 6 1 but prob closer to 6 1.5 but not a full 6 2
He was MEASURED as 6'2.4", so he surpassed 6'2", he was over 6'2". The measurement is the most accurate proof we have. Mr. Kaplan says on 18/May/11
James is 100% right. jtm says on 18/May/11
shaun you are the one that has matt damon at 5'11. Larry says on 18/May/11
The guy who played Q in james bond always looked at least a half an inch if not an inch taller than Connery and he's also listed at 6 2 so Connery peack was at least 6 1 but prob closer to 6 1.5 but not a full 6 2 rafa says on 16/May/11
Shaun says on 16/May/11
mister_lennon says on 12/Apr/11
the bond taylors mesurements are pure ****. Connery was always 6'2 at peak, if not a little more.
LOL at the fan boy. Connery CLAIMED he was 6'1.5" barefoot , and that's the truth.
nope, he didnt claim that. Epic fail. He was 6'2.4" Shaun says on 16/May/11
mister_lennon says on 12/Apr/11
the bond taylors mesurements are pure ****. Connery was always 6'2 at peak, if not a little more.
LOL at the fan boy. Connery CLAIMED he was 6'1.5" barefoot , and that's the truth. James says on 15/May/11
Sean connery looked under 6'2 in the Presedio. rafa says on 15/May/11
James says on 14/May/11
Sean Connery 6'1.5 (187cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'3.5 (192cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.25 (191cm)
LOL why your obsession in downgrading one half-inch every 1960's stars, how can you appreciate half-inches LOL James says on 14/May/11
Sean Connery 6'1.5 (187cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'3.5 (192cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.25 (191cm) James says on 13/May/11
EdgarHernandez says on 5/May/11
well james, there is a diference between towering, nd looking massive. Connery alot gives an overwhelming impresion. Connery most of the time when put whit a legit 6ft guys he always make the or look scrawy(whit nicolas cage) or small, some times bot, he just have a to heroic sturd build.
Funny actually you say that because in his later film carrier in the 90's he actually gave of a more bigger and impressive appearence than he did in the 1960's.
Connery though has never looked 'massive' but he has looked 'tall'. Not sure if he has really ever looked very tall? rafa says on 11/May/11
Viper says on 9/May/11
Yet you are the biggest upgrading embarrassment on the site Rampage.
LOL at 6-2.25. HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
LOL the guy was 6'2.4" like it or not EdgarHernandez says on 10/May/11
viper: neither your or me know for sure some things.
1.- James tryed to contact the bond tailor, and, there was not really good answerd, they only told him that the information was "confiential".
2.- for be quite honest the site of the bond chart looks like a bad joke(even the portraits of the bonds are bad draws whit awful proportions).
3.-cant you simple think for a minute that is posible for connery to be 6ft 2.5 at the morning in his 20s?
4.- in bodybuilding if you ever seen a video competition you are complety barefoot, you stod in line to get weighted and measured.
5.- you are fighting for .5 inch wich if i dare to say is not that big, maybe a full inch will be more beliavle but, seriusly, half inch?
6.- this guy will not be the first guy who is taller than his claimed height.
finaly for be quite hones this guy really looked solid 6tft 2 in his yount, he was pretty much build like charlton heston, broad shoulders, thic neck, long but broad legs, i will not be surprised if this guy make it to the 90s. |
