How tall was Christopher Lee - Page 2

Add a Comment509 comments

Average Guess (133 Votes)
6ft 4.77in (195cm)
Edgar_Hernández said on 2/Jun/15
Click Here
with Christopher Lee
Edgar_Hernández said on 2/Jun/15
Click Here
with solid 6f 4 vincent price: Christopher has the higher shoulder wich makes him look taller.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 19/Mar/15
"Peak height was 6ft 4¾in (195cm)"
MrTBlack said on 7/Dec/14
6'4.5" seems like an golden height to me. Your 1/2" above the growth chart but your not quite "freakishly tall". Anyway yeah. I will say this many times, the general rule is if your a half inch above your height you omit the half inch example, say your 5'10.5" your suppose to write down 5'10" on any ID card unless your 5'10 3/4 then you say your 5'11".
draculas bride said on 3/Nov/14
I have loved him since I was at school I used to be scared if him, now I want him to come to me and bite my neck so I can be his eternally
Judd said on 3/Nov/14
I think he's today 6'2-2.5" and was at peak 6'4-4.5"!
Sam said on 22/Oct/14
How about an update to credits: "British actor best known for roles in films such as The Curse of Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Oblong Box, The Devil Rides Out, The Wicker Man, The Man with the Golden Gun, The Three Musketeers and film franchise such as the Dracula films by Hammer Studios, The Lord of the Rings, and the Star Wars prequels"?
[Editor Rob: yeah those extra few are worth mentioning.]
Arch Stanton said on 21/Oct/14
Arch Stanton says on 8/Oct/14
@Rob, when did the downgrade come and what convinced you on it? I think you're right though as I've been saying for some time, I've seen a lot of his films and mostly I struggle to see a 196 6'5", he could look a flat 6'4" in some films actually, 6'4.5" for me is spot on. He could look a full 6'5" next to Roger Moore and Edward Woodward though. 195cm also possible but I've long though 196 a bit high.
[Editor Rob: quite a few months ago, I think if he came up with the 6ft 4 and a half it seems a good shout for him.]

@Rob. Did he claim 6'4.5 after all then? Where/when was that? I always knew he was undercutting himself with a flat 6'4" but I wasn't too sure on a 196cm barefoot, at least after the morning. He was measured at 6'4.5 (194cm) by Guinness too I think, in fact I remember reading that in a Guinness book in the very bookstore I saw Woody Allen in NYC about 15 years back!!
[Editor Rob: while ago someone was certain he did claim it]
Arch Stanton said on 8/Oct/14
He did look 3.5 inches taller than Roger Moore granted, but honestly I must have seen at least 20 of his films and in most of them he seemed 6'4" range.
Arch Stanton said on 8/Oct/14
You got a picture of him from Dracula era or something too?
Arch Stanton said on 8/Oct/14
I think he'd have definitely cleared the 6'5" mark out of bed though.
Arch Stanton said on 8/Oct/14
@Rob, when did the downgrade come and what convinced you on it? I think you're right though as I've been saying for some time, I've seen a lot of his films and mostly I struggle to see a 196 6'5", he could look a flat 6'4" in some films actually, 6'4.5" for me is spot on. He could look a full 6'5" next to Roger Moore and Edward Woodward though. 195cm also possible but I've long though 196 a bit high.
[Editor Rob: quite a few months ago, I think if he came up with the 6ft 4 and a half it seems a good shout for him.]
k mart said on 7/Oct/14
Greg Is Right. Its Hard To Tell A Half Inch Difference In Height. In My Honest Opinion I Believe Christopher Lee Out Of Bed Was A Strong 6'5'' And A Strong 6'4.5'' at Night. Shoes Have A Half Inch Heel So. Lose 1/2 an Inch At Night. Shoes Make Up The Height Lost. Impossible To Tell The Difference :)
Greg said on 9/Sep/14
Not going to quibble about being 6'4.5" or 6'5" (I can't tell the difference between those two) but I think he was 6'5" when younger and looked it. Dude was very tall. He would sometimes say 6'4" in interviews because probably it didn't look good for an actor to appear be crazy tall (didn't Rock Hudson do the same thing?). Looked a good three or four inches taller than Roger Moore in "Man with the Golden Gun", and Moore had to have been at least 6'1" then.
James said on 19/Jul/14
The guy is 92 so obviously he's lost some height.
vmjmurphy said on 11/Jul/14
Here is the link to the interview again - Rob's link is broken. "Lee isn’t as tall as he once was, having, he thinks, lost about an inch from his full height of 6ft 5in, but he doesn’t stoop." Click Here
Magnusver said on 28/Apr/14
He once said that in old his age he had lost an inch and was now 6'4
avi said on 11/Apr/14
@Lorne
Probably 6'4.5 then said either 6'5 or 6'4 depending.
Sam said on 8/Apr/14
I'd bet there would no height difference between Joe Manganiello and Christopher Lee when he was at his peak.
Lorne said on 5/Apr/14
Click Here
Rob, scroll down a few paragraphs into that article. The interviewer claims that Crhis Lee said he thinks he has lost an inch from his peak height of 6ft5, but the direct quote isn't there. But then I have seen him claim 6'4 a few times as well. But, this is two articles claiming he said 6ft5 peak, and that he's lost height. Both (relatively) recent interviews, so he must be saying he's lost height. But did he say 6'5? I wish I could find a direct quote...
[Editor Rob: he could have just said I've lost an inch and not said 'I was 6ft 5', it's hard to tell from the interview.]
Lorne said on 5/Apr/14
I'd give him 195, he was taller than legit 6'4 Vincent Price. He look 6'5, but claimed 6'4, so 194-195 range. Certainly no less than this, it is clear he rounds down. I rean an article, he said he had lost height, and was 6'5, but was now only 6'3. But, it didn't have a direct quote. Wish we could find one...
avi said on 5/Apr/14
@Rampage(-_-_-)Clover
Well yeah a strong 6'4 maybe...but if Moore was 6'1 flat or really 6'0.75 then Lee can't be much over. I think 6'4.5 most but 6'4.25. Now he's in 6'2 area
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Mar/14
I think 195cm peak is a fairer estimate, if not the full 6ft5.
A flat 6ft4 is too low for him. He was definitely playing it down a bit like most really tall actors.

I agree that recently he's looking 6ft2.5-6ft3 tops.
avi said on 5/Dec/13
@Arch Stanton says on 7/Nov/13
Very good movie but Woodward at 5'9 makes Lee seem a strong 6'4 so I'd say 6'4.5 is fair now weak 6'2.5. And yeah 3.25 on Moore I think no "Moore" than that!
Arch Stanton said on 7/Nov/13
Anybody have any idea who the massive bearded guy was in the Wicker Man who carries Woodward? He looked surely 6 ft 8 as he looked noticeably bigger than even Christopher Lee.
Arch Stanton said on 7/Nov/13
Mmm maybe. Looking at him proportionally he does look more 6'5" than 6'4" seeing him walking through the garden with Woodward.
Arch Stanton said on 7/Nov/13
LOL Christopher Lee looks like Sacha Baron's Bruno in the Wicker Man!!
Arch Stanton said on 7/Nov/13
Watching The Wicker Man now, really good film, great folk music like soundtrack and an endearing Scottish location. Rural Scotland is soooo beautiful. The look of the film reminds me a bit of Ryan's Daughter, although that was set in Ireland. And Britt Ekland and Ingrid Pitt in the same film is certainly a treat for the eyes! No way does Lee look 7 inches taller though. Woodward is level with the crook in Lee's nose, that's more 6 inches.
Arch Stanton said on 22/Oct/13
If you watch Dracula from 1958 for instance he looks more 6'4" than 6'5" IMO as he did in a lot of films. I think he could have been 196 morning height but it's difficult to see him that high all day. I still think he was more a strong 6'4" guy rather than a solid 6'5" guy. The Vincent Price thing is baffling me though because I thought having seen their separate films that they similar range. It's easy to get carried away with him because he was skinny. I mean somebody like James Cromwell to me looks a good 2 inches taller on screen than Lee ever did. Whatever he was he remains a towering legend, and it was great to see Johnny Depp's fitting tribute to him.
Arch Stanton said on 20/Oct/13
Photos like Click Here are crazy. He looks 6'6" range there and Vincent Price strangely looks 189-90! I've seen enough of Price's films to know that he looked a proper 6'4" guy at peak but I haven't seen too many of his post 60s films.
Arch Stanton said on 20/Oct/13
Rob what would you think a reasonable out of bed measurement could have been for his peak, 197 cm? I can see near 6'5.5" out of bed and 6'5" morning but I have a job believing he was a strong 6'5" guy and I see him as more a weak one who'd have been between 6'4" and 6'5" at some point in the day. When you see him next to guys like Moore, Cushing and Price he really did look a full 6'5" but sometimes if stood alone especially he could seem shorter than that.When you saw him in 2006 he was mid 80s so if you saw him at 189-90 I think on average that would be, what, a loss of 6-7 cm, from peak? It seems to add up to a peak of 6'5" doesn't it.
[Editor Rob: he could have been between 6ft 4 and 5 and simply went with 6ft 4 when saying his height...]
Arch Stanton said on 20/Oct/13
Vincent Price was a proper 6'4" guy yeah, not buying anything under peak. Always looked it consistently. Lee could often not seem as high as 6'5" in the Dracula films, especially the 1958 original, but if you see him next to Cushing in particular you can see he was nearer 6'5" than 6'4". I think he might have measured 196cm barefoot in the morning peak but I see him more as a weak 6'5", sort of like Joe Manganiello/Darius Danesh.
Spaniard68 said on 6/Oct/13
Your comment makes a lotta sense to me, thank you Mr.Sam
Mark said on 5/Oct/13
Lee, to me and based on The Man with The Golden Gun movie and photos there-of, could just about see over the top of Moore's head. That's almost 5 inches. Moore was either shorter than 6'2 or 6'1, or Lee was "at least" 6'4, plus a few fractions.
Sam said on 3/Oct/13
The answer IMO, Spaniard68, is that Christopher Lee, while in the 6'4"+ range was seemingly more like 6'4.75" than an even 6'4". Factor in that the Price was 11 years older and I believe less physically fit than Lee. Price could have lost a solid inch somewhere in middle age. That might result in the younger, better-postured Lee looking around 2 inches taller.
Spaniard68 said on 30/Sep/13
If Lee was 6'4"in his prime then how tall was Mr. Price? In the picture with Cushing,Carradine, and Vincent Price, Lee is taller than Price by 2 inches, maybe he has floor advantage.I quite agree with Mr.Stanton that Lee looks 5in.taller than Peter Cushing.When I was a child I remember reading in magazines Chris Lee was( 1,95m)...6'4,75"...Something doesn´t seem to add up in the pictures with Price...Price was for sure 6'4"...Sometimes Lee looks taller than him by 2 or more inches....floor unevenness? Was he a solid 6'5"?...If your shoulder line is high you can look taller than you really are.This height issue is very curious, ain´t it? anyways, Lee looked impressive in his movies.The starting point of being tall is 5'11" in Spain, the average height for a man is 5'10" So I think anything beyond 6'3" Is super tall.
Arch Stanton said on 10/Sep/13
Roger Moore did look near 6'2" in The Last Time I Saw Paris.
Arch Stanton said on 10/Sep/13
A case for 6'4.5" peak could be made, I mean in a lot of films he didn't quite look as high at 196cm, but I think he was nearer 6'5" than 6'4" anyway and he was one of those actors who dislike being too tall and downgrade. ..
Arch Stanton said on 10/Sep/13
Maio says on 6/Sep/13
Christopher Lee was never a full 6 ft 5 in. I think he was close to 6 ft 4 in/193 cm, maybe 6 ft 4.25 but no more. He wasn't more than 3 in taller than Roger Moore who for sure wasn't 6 ft 2, but probably 6 ft 1.25 in at most, so Lee was in the 193-194 cm range.

Yes he was. He was between 3 and 4 inches taller than Moore, I asked Rob once and he agreed. Roger Moore was 6'1.5" peak.
Arch Stanton said on 10/Sep/13
Rob do you think Lee, Sterling Hayden and Rock Hudson being 6'5" in their generation (average 5'7") would be equivalent to a 6'7"-6'8" guy today? Strangely although average was near 5'7" then Hollywood had high number of 6'3" r 6'4" didn't it? Nearly every classic film I see there's a 6'1 or 6'3" guy in it.
[Editor Rob: maybe like 6ft 6-6.5 today ]
Sam said on 9/Sep/13
At peak, I think he was probably very similar in height to Tim Robbins, Alexander Skarsgard, Randy Quaid. I think he's convincingly over 6'4" but not by a whole lot.
Lorne said on 14/Aug/13
@avi has a point, Rob. The guy has said a thousand times he was 6ft4, so what gives? I've heard him referred to as "the 6ft5 Dracula, but TCM also said 6'4. I just don't know, I guess if he manages 6'2.5-6'3 he was 6'5, a guy his age and size would have easily lost 5-6 cm at age 80, but man, he h. e empathetic about being 6ft4. Though again, maybe being British, he measured 194-195cm and ignored the fraction?
Brian said on 13/Aug/13
'In Man with the Golden Gun'
Moore was not above 185-186 cm / 6'1-6'1.25 in 1974, actually he was already 47 years old and maybe shrunk 1 cm since his youth.
I think Lee was 195 cm / 6'4.75 at his peak and he was there 52 years old, so i think he shrunk 1 cm too and so he was 194 cm at this time.
So it is most likely that in their youth Lee was 195 cm / 6'4.75.
Moore was 6'1.25-6'1.5 in his peak i think.
Now there both 85+ and may shrunk at least 1 inch.
avi said on 12/Aug/13
@Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 11/Aug/13
i htink 6'1.75 is too high for Moore. he claimed 6'1 he was maybe 6'1.25 or 6'1.5 nowadays maybe 6'0.5. assuming Moore IS 6'1.5 than Lee was 6'4.5 so you'd be right. truthfully it was probably Moore at 6'1.25 and Lee at 6'4.25 solid 3 inches. Moore was told to walk up straight since his early acting days he walked like a 5'10 or 5'11 man and was yelled at and ever since he walked at his full strong 6'1. Lee seemed to have decent posture but he may have dropped a bit making him look 6'4 as opposed to a weak 6'5.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Aug/13
In 1974
Christopher Lee 6ft4.5-6ft4.75
Roger Moore 6ft1.5-6ft1.75
avi said on 2/Aug/13
@Ian C. says on 2/Aug/13

Your question is simple. He reported his height in 1 inch shoes OR is 6'4 and change and rounds down. I'm 6'0 flat and say 5'11.5 or almost 6'0. This isn't surprising as 6'5 is not exactly a very distinguished height unless your career is basketball or other sports or specific things that may have a need for being so massive.
Ian C. said on 2/Aug/13
Lee stated emphatically that he was six foot four on the first page of his autobiography (Tall Dark and Gruesome). I wouldn't presume to doubt the analyses of the experts on this site, but why would he round his height down when he was so eager to brag about it? In fact, why would anyone lie about his height by an inch, unless it was to bring it in line with some magic benchmark like six feet?
Lorne said on 1/Aug/13
This guy really could look a legit 6'5. I always though his 6'4 claim was a downgrade, he was taller than Vincent price, a legit 6'4 guy, so no less than a solid 194cm. And really looks more 6'5 range than 6'4.5. But why claim 6'4? Is it possible he was rounding down? Maybe me measured 195cm and just went with 6'4, cause he thought 6'5 was too much. Remember someone his size COULD lose 4cm from morning to night. He could have woke up a full 6'6, and 6ft4.75 night. If he really did range from 6'4.75 to 6'6 then 6'5 is fair. But then he always could have just thought 6'4, but it seems likely he was rounding down( like Lee Pace rounding down 6ft3.5-6ft3.75 to 6'3 flat.
avi said on 1/Aug/13
He had solid 3 inches on 6'1 roger Moore he never towered him. He is 6'4 never was 6'5 but he isn't far from it. He can appear taller than 6'4 because he's lanky. Not sure why people are carrying on saying he's 6'5. In 1974 he'd lose no height he was 50 only. He didn't lose much til 80...peter Cushing seems 5'11 which would put Lee at 6'4. I'm sure Lee was a strong 6'4 and 6'5 and change in shoes. Its even possible Lee reported his 6'5 claim in shoes.
Sam said on 31/Jul/13
The Guinness Books of Movie Facts that I have states that Lee is the tallest leading man (it came out before Vince Vaughn was a star) at 6'5". However, he states in his autobiography two times that he's 6'4". Why do think he claims 6'4" Rob if he's really taller?
afka9 said on 29/Jul/13
now,he look a good 187-188 cm
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Jul/13
Moore looked 6ft2 if this guy was truly 6ft5
Kyuss said on 23/Jun/13
6-5" peak looks very possible imo.
Alex said on 19/Apr/13
You mean 6 feet.
John said on 17/Apr/13
Hes barely 6 inches now, let alone 6'3 lol
Arch Stanton said on 14/Apr/13
Click Here

Christopher Lee does look easily 5 inches taller here than supposed 6'0 Peter Cushing.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Apr/13
Lee's probably 6'2" today, but for a 90 year old man 6'2"-6'3" is super tall. You rarely see a man over 80 over 185cm.
Lucio said on 30/Mar/13
Rob, but in the movie "The man who could cheat death" Christopher Lee next to Anton Driffing who was listed as 5'11", looks near 191 cm rather than 196 cm. What do you think?
Click Here
[Editor Rob: I've not seen the movie, although in that still there'd be more difference than it suggest because of Anton being a bit closer...how much difference, I'd need to watch it]
James said on 24/Feb/13
Well Arch what do you think of 6'1 flat for roger Moore?

If Moore was 6'1.5 then Christopher Lee looked a legit 6'5 in comparison. Keep in mind as well that Lee was no fresh spring chicken in 1974.


I think rob might have him spot on at 6'5. He could have been a 6'5 guy who looked 6'4.5 or might have shrunk more during the day.
Arch Stanton said on 22/Feb/13
Darius Danesh reminds me of a younger Christopher Lee in terms of height and build. There is a clip of him on youtube singing opera and with slicked back hair and a long black cloak he reminds me of a young Christopher Lee. And Darius I think is 6'4.5".
Arch Stanton said on 22/Feb/13
Well Lee did have 3 and a half inches on Roger Moore, so I think he had to have been near it. But Christopher Lee didn't quite look a full 6'5" in the 50s and 60s films I've seen either. I'd go more with 6'4.5". He didn't appear as big as Rock Hudson to me. I was watching some of his Dracula films at Christmas and he didn't look over 6'4".
Jamesy said on 25/Jan/13
Do u agree Arch that he looked more 6'4 in Man with the Golden Gun?
Arch Stanton said on 19/Jan/13
That should make a guy seem taller not shorter James! I've been watching a fair few of his old movies of late I've got to say he does seem more 6'4" than 6'5" in a lot of them.
James said on 7/Jan/13
Sometimes he could look shorter than 6'5 cause he has a long head
Original said on 24/Dec/12
6'5 peak".
r said on 12/Dec/12
Was never 6'5 6'3.5 in his 40s and 6'4 in his 20s
Gregg said on 7/Dec/12
For some reason the initial listing has Lee at 6'5" but as I remember he has always said in interviews that he was 6'4", why would he underestimate his height? In any case at his age 6'3" isn't surprising.
Sam said on 30/Nov/12
He may have been a true peak 195 cm but I can't seem him under it at all. Morning height at peak 196-197 cm, me thinks.

Lee with 6'0" Peter Cushing:
Click Here
with Cushing, 6'4" Vincent Price & 6'1.25" (per web) John Carradine (the latter two must have lost some height by then):
Click Here
with Cushing & 5'3.5" Sammy Davis Jr. (LOL):
Click Here
with Price (who must be dropping some height with his leg positioning):
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 29/Nov/12
Watched another of his earlier films the other day and again I didn't think he looked quite 6 ft 5.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Nov/12
Watching Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll now. Doesn't look more than 6'4" and as tall as 6'5". In fact the actress Dawn Adams must be very tall as she's only about 3-4 inches shorter than him in heels. She's probably 5'9"-5'10" range.
Copnovelist195 said on 9/Nov/12
He towered over Roger Moore in The Man With The Golden Gun (and he claimed to be 6ft1.) I'm 6ft5 myself and I can quite believe he was too (at his peak).
Arch Stanton said on 4/Nov/12
Question for you Rob below.
[Editor Rob: I don't know if they actually measured, if you look at the stuntman Kiran Shah, he had a very specific height as he actually was measured. Here]
Arch Stanton said on 3/Nov/12
195cm peak I think is about right, he did always look 6 ft 6 ish in shoes. Rob what do you think the Guinness issue is? Do you think they measured both Christopher and Vince at 194cm barefoot? I'm pretty sure with height they usually like to formally measure people barefoot. I saw a documentary once with a short fat Guinness guy measuring a 6 ft 10 inch Thai girl.
johnny said on 8/Oct/12
Clint Walker is still alive at 85 but I haven't seen any photos of him in old age. His peak height was 6 ft 6 inches (198 cms I think). Does anyone know how tall he is likely to be now as a very old man?
Denis said on 6/Oct/12
Lee had barely only a full inch on 6'3" Samuel L. Jackson in Star Wars Episode II. So 6'4" seems about right for Lee's height.
Legit 6 footer said on 29/Sep/12
In the picture below with Kristinna Loken (~5'10")he looks about 6'3", was she wearing heels or not?
EdgarHernandez said on 27/Aug/12
I know shaun, is just that is weird to see people and how they(like we said in Mexico), dan el viejazo.
Shaun said on 24/Aug/12
EdgarHernandez says on 7/Nov/11
the age has finally caught christopher lee...HARD, he is in the pat o become the new clint eastwood case, he already have the disproportionate shirinked uper body to match:

He's 90 years old! I'd like to see how you look at 90! Most 90 year old men have terrible age spots and stuff on the face like Lee has.
Beastman said on 23/Jan/12
That's possible, but I think they used his peak height at that point even though he may not have still been that. I mean, if he started to shrink at around 60 or so, it's not like he would've lost half an inch in 18 years and then an extra 1.5 or 2.5 inches in only 6 years. Plus, if he was a full 6'5, that would've made him the tallest lead actor alone, since Vince Vaughn didn't reach the full thing. But now, Vince should FINALLY be downgraded to his definite 6'4.5. Not a chance would he have lost anything before the time he was recorded, and even now.
EdgarHernandez said on 20/Jan/12
he still was taller than his friend vincent price(who wasnt shorter than 6ft 4), the 6ft 4.5 was the measurement the guiness put when he was already old, the book listen him at that height in the 2000, now he was 78 at the time, i think is pretty posible that he lost half inch by that time.
Wowzers said on 19/Jan/12
Actor Christopher Lee (UK) has portrayed both characters, starring in The Curse of Frankenstein in 1957 and Dracula in 1958. Standing 1.94 m (6 ft 5 in) tall, Lee is a co-record holder for the tallest actor in a leading role, sharing the title with Vince Vaughn (USA).

So he says 6ft 4in, and he's 6ft 4.5in, so he rounds down where most round up.
Henrik said on 18/Jan/12
Easily gave off a 6'5" impression in The Man with the Golden Gun.
Beastman said on 13/Jan/12
Geez. How hard is it to find this page or another and realize evidence is written down? Not hard at all. It doesn't matter what he looks or what he says, it's right here. It's an official statement holding an official measurement. It's not an estimate or anything else. Can't evidence just be taken when it's offered? He was 194 cm which Rob should present as 6ft 4.5 since that's what it really is. 6ft 5 was a roundup to look more impressive and appropriate. And the exact same thing goes with Vince Vaughn. (Below the Dracula pic)
Click Here
EdgarHernandez said on 7/Nov/11
the age has finally caught christopher lee...HARD, he is in the pat o become the new clint eastwood case, he already have the disproportionate shirinked uper body to match:
Click Here
but to be fair, he is 9 years older than clint, and probably now walking he is 6f 2, and standing for a photo he is 6ft 3 straight(unlike clint lee still can straight his back)
a thing to take in acount is that christopher lee have a very dignifed posture, he stands if he can complety straight, this photo was from 2005, just look how straight he hold his back:
Click Here
this one with christina locke(easily looks solid 6ft 4)
Click Here
the 2 are standing in perfect posture(christine is even forcing a little)
with johnny depp, who acording to the site is 5ft 9, looks solid 6ft 4:
Click Here
that photo was from 2006, this guy was 6ft 4 still at the time but when the cane entered he began losing height, he begean using a cane in the very end of octover of 2006, and he has been with a can since then, but come on, he was 85, if i come to 85 without needing a cane i will scount myself a extremely lucky.
so my theory is that until 2007 he was solid 6ft 4, bu i think that he drop from solid 6ft 5 to 6ft 4 in the very mid 90s.
christopher lee and roger moore have been compared before, i think is safe to say that in this phot is show how much bigger lee realy is:
Click Here
roger moore, with heels togheter, squared shoulders and the head just slight tild, christopher lee in other side is standing relaxed.
Tman said on 4/Nov/11
Peak 1,95m which he rounded down to 6'4
LAN Jiao said on 30/Oct/11
Peak 194, now 189.
EdgarHernandez said on 30/Sep/11
gaga, my friend, 7 cm is very short lost height for a guy as far i am concern, i mean, do you ever see the case of david prowse, clint eastwood, or boris karloff?, on top of that this guys is not anymore in the nearly 80 line, he is nearly 90 years old(the broder of my dad suffer greatter height lost than lee, lee is pretty much very lucky).
Gaga-183.2cm-185.1cm said on 20/Sep/11
Well, rob, i dont think he ever was 6'5, for record guinness in the official page they list him at 194cm alongside with vince vaughn at also 194cm. If you saw him at 189, isnt it more likely he was 6'4 than 6'5?6-7cm loss is too much even for an old person with a good posture like him, my granda is almost 80 and with his same posture and has lost just an inch and a half of height.
Rick springfield said on 12/Aug/11
Strong 6 5 in 1973 movie wicker man
Shaun said on 30/Jul/11
@ James. No, that's not what I said. I said Rob said he estimated him as 6'2" or 6'3" in 2006. Could be 6'2" today. ALTHOUGH I saw pics of him from around 2009 and he still looked very tall range as in looked 6'4" ish even compared to several actors around 6' or 6'1".
George H. said on 20/Jul/11
I've said it a million times in real life and on this site. Not everybody loses height with age. We've personally known two who didn't even lose half an inch well into their eighties and nineties.
James said on 19/Jul/11
Shaun says on 18/Jul/11
Well he's pushing 90 now, you'd expect a 6'5" peak guy to be nearer 6'2" by 90 right? Isn't it true men lose about an inch of height per decade after 60 on average? Rob said he estimated him as 6'2" or 6'3" in 2006. Could be 6'2" today. Although I saw pics of him from around 2009 and he still looked very tall range.

6'2.5 is not really in the very tall range.
Shaun said on 18/Jul/11
Well he's pushing 90 now, you'd expect a 6'5" peak guy to be nearer 6'2" by 90 right? Isn't it true men lose about an inch of height per decade after 60 on average? Rob said he estimated him as 6'2" or 6'3" in 2006. Could be 6'2" today. Although I saw pics of him from around 2009 and he still looked very tall range.
Shaun said on 18/Jul/11
Alan Napier looked 3-4 inches taller than John Wayne did!! I watched Man with the Golden Gun the other say and think he would have measured around 195cm next to 187cm Roger Moore at that time. The height difference to me looked roughly 3.5 inches.
James said on 15/Jul/11
i don't think he was ever over 6'5.
Mohammed said on 28/Jun/11
He was a solid 6'5 or even taller during his youth. I Doubt he's more than 6'1-6'1.5 now considering his age.
Danimal said on 14/Jun/11
Shaun says on 14/May/11
Guiness Book of Records lists Lee at 6'5". Obviously they have proof he was measured at 6 ft 5 at some point, they don't dish out records without proof. Lee always claimed a flat 6'4" which is one of the more obvious under billings. Alan Napier claimed 6'4" too LOL.

Tim Robbins underbilled himself as well.
Danimal said on 14/Jun/11
The man was a full 6'5". At almost 90 years old, he's probably dipped below 6'2" today.
Terryman said on 12/Jun/11
Rob it actually possible he was rounding down 1,95m when he said 6'4'',the Guiness book of records lists him and Vaughn at this height too so i think he might have a case I mean you usually list celebs as they claim and I think you should give him the figure he was rounding down!
James said on 3/Jun/11
Shaun says on 14/May/11
Guiness Book of Records lists Lee at 6'5". Obviously they have proof he was measured at 6 ft 5 at some point, they don't dish out records without proof. Lee always claimed a flat 6'4" which is one of the more obvious under billings. Alan Napier claimed 6'4" too LOL.

guiness had vince vaughn at 6'4 (193cm)
avi said on 27/May/11
EdgarHernandez says on 25/May/11
avi you have take in consideration that lee, and monroe are in a beach?, you sunk alot, more if you are heavier.
this clip i related to the tim burton photo, just pause in the minute 5:39 , when clin straight up more, he still tries to stay straight but his legs arent strong enought to carry his body anymore.
Click Here
i see solid 4 inches, and lee is not traying to stay straight, he is even leadint to give burton a hugh.

yes it is evident his height has really taken a toll on him. he is probably a strong 6'2 now a days. he looks to be sinking 2 inches so yes a strong 6'4 when younger. which makes sense because he has 3 1/2 inches on Moore. about the sand i have seen the movie countless times and doubt it makes a difference here. its not like Lee is standing in a 2 inch dune or something. there are other instance where moore and lee and together and it is evident that the difference is the same as it was in the sand picture.
EdgarHernandez said on 25/May/11
avi you have take in consideration that lee, and monroe are in a beach?, you sunk alot, more if you are heavier.
this clip i related to the tim burton photo, just pause in the minute 5:39 , when clin straight up more, he still tries to stay straight but his legs arent strong enought to carry his body anymore.
Click Here
i see solid 4 inches, and lee is not traying to stay straight, he is even leadint to give burton a hugh.
avi said on 19/May/11
this should end any debate. Christopher Lee was 6'4 NOT 6'5. Roger Moore is a strong 6'1. here is the pic:Click Here
come one there is not more than a 3 -3.5 TOPS inch difference. NOT 4 inches. if it was 4 Moore would be on par with lee's eye brows. remember Moore could be 6'0.5. it is not certain Moore was saying his 6'1-6'1.5 height barefoot.
Cranberries (6 ft. 3.25 evening, 17 years) said on 17/May/11
Click Here
Certainly not looking 6'3" next to ~5'11.5" Tim Burton (Burton might be shorter than that). I'd say he's much nearer to 6'1.5" or so.
Shaun said on 14/May/11
Click Here

Looks about 9-10 inches taller than 5'6" George Lucas here at age 80 odd.
Shaun said on 14/May/11
Guiness Book of Records lists Lee at 6'5". Obviously they have proof he was measured at 6 ft 5 at some point, they don't dish out records without proof. Lee always claimed a flat 6'4" which is one of the more obvious under billings. Alan Napier claimed 6'4" too LOL.
Shaun said on 14/May/11
Johan Cruyff says on 30/Apr/11
Christopher Lee's real heights were:

---PEAK---
Morning (ou of bed)= 6'4.65" (1.95 m)
After 1,5-3 hrs= 6'4.2" (1.94 m)
After 5-10 hrs= 6'3'9" (1.93 m)

Today, he's a stronger 6'2"-6'2.25" (1.88-1.89 m) max, no more!

No way. The lowest he could have possibly been in his prime was 6'4.5". out of bed this guy would have been a strong 6'5". He's lost 2-2.5 inches today approaching 90 which is a very normal height loss. Looks between 6'2" and 6'3" today.
Shaun said on 14/May/11
Clint had much more muscle than Lee, although Clint did also give off a rake thin lanky impression... Lee looked like he'd be 6'5" 185 pounds sort of frame.
James said on 13/May/11
Both a peak clint and peak christopher lee seemed similar in build except i think clint eastwood might have been more bulky
EdgarHernandez said on 9/May/11
well james, i always take in acount that both of the mans(monroe and lee) are in a bad surface(they are in a beach) so the heavier must sunk more(maybe lee weight a little more considering his height but dont show because of his height), have you ever walk in a beach, you sunk alot there, most of the time you end between 2 to 3 inches whit feets in the sand.
as for sam:
Click Here
in this one and in the 12 they stand each other(vincent and lee are by far the largest people in the movie) but i notice that vincent all the movie is oviusly sluching a little, maybe some one want to make lee look bigger.
James said on 7/May/11
Well i saw him in james bond again today and he looked closer to 6'4 than 6'5. think about a legit 6'5 guy who is rake think should give of a 6'7 or 6'6 illusion. then again i notice this guy has quite a long narrow head like clint eastwood did so maybe that is why he does not look taller?
Sam said on 4/May/11
In this photo Lee looks much taller than Vincent Price. It looks like the 12 year ago difference between them resulted in a larger height difference than 1 inch:
Click Here
EdgarHernandez said on 3/May/11
johan: this guy was taller than a legit 6ft 4 vincent price, even vincet express that lee was taller than him. vincent height can be seen in one movie whit clint walker were him is not dwarf by the gigantic 6ft 6 of his co star(maybe helps that vincent was nearly all legs)
Johan Cruyff said on 30/Apr/11
Christopher Lee's real heights were:

---PEAK---
Morning (ou of bed)= 6'4.65" (1.95 m)
After 1,5-3 hrs= 6'4.2" (1.94 m)
After 5-10 hrs= 6'3'9" (1.93 m)

Today, he's a stronger 6'2"-6'2.25" (1.88-1.89 m) max, no more!
EdgarHernandez said on 29/Apr/11
christopher lee have a very stiff posture still. he unched like my grandfather, he dont hunh his back but his legs not longer suport his weight so he walks whit his legs and hip relaxed alot, that make him lots alot of height, just look him stading, his knees are always bend and tired. his back is not the problem is his legs.
mohammad said on 4/Apr/11
He's 88 years old, of course he lost a lot of height, also he has a pretty bad posture nowadays.

I would say that he was 6'5 in his prime and 6'2 by looking at contemporary pictures.
DeEs 5-11 and 3/4 said on 19/Mar/11
6'4. About 3 1/2 inches max on 6'1 Roger Moore. Yes people can lose 3 inches but only with a hunched back or some other medical issue. The height is technically still there.In fact theres an article with men that lose more than an inch of height are more likely to suffer from heart disease.
Josh B said on 14/Mar/11
Click Here
This shows the height difference of him with Moore
Danimal said on 10/Mar/11
Anonymous says on 30/Nov/10
Mistor Lennon, I'm afraid I'm not buying that.
Chris Lee 6'4
Vincent Price 6'3
Peter Cushing 5'8

hahaha.... Cushing was 5'11.5".. Lee was 6'5" and Price was 6'4...
Danimal said on 10/Mar/11
avi says on 9/Mar/11
If he is 6'2 now he was never a real 6'5. come on. 6'4. losing more than 2 inches in height doesnt happen unless you have back surgery or some other trauma to the spine or legs. My grandfather is 5'7.5ish. He was never over 5'8 1/4 when he was younger. Yes tall people lose more height but 3 inches is tremendous.

MEdical science disagrees with you. The AVERAGE man by 80 will have lost 2" and the average female by 80 will have lost 3.25".. After 80 years of age, the increase in height loss gets larger faster... Remember, this is the AVERAGE.. Some men lose even MORE...
little sue said on 10/Mar/11
Both my Nan and her sister were around 5ft 2 in youth but had both lost about 6 or 7 inches by the time they died at 93. Osteoporphosis was probably the cause though they were never diagnosed it
avi said on 9/Mar/11
If he is 6'2 now he was never a real 6'5. come on. 6'4. losing more than 2 inches in height doesnt happen unless you have back surgery or some other trauma to the spine or legs. My grandfather is 5'7.5ish. He was never over 5'8 1/4 when he was younger. Yes tall people lose more height but 3 inches is tremendous.
Jack Hastings said on 13/Feb/11
Tim Burton described him as 6'5" @ The Baftas when presenting him with the Fellowship award. Lee looked a strong 6'2" but definitely was 6'5" at prime, no question.
EdgarHernandez said on 6/Feb/11
mike, legit 6ft 5 in his prime is posible(more like nearly a fact), bu this mean most know him know for his star wars and lord of the rings stuff, so most people know his at his 6ft 4 range.
Mike said on 5/Feb/11
He looks strongly only 6 ft 4 I don't think 6 ft 5 is a ligeit height it's too tall for him
EdgarHernandez said on 23/Dec/10
meltdown, yes he is old, but even in his nearly 90s, this guy is easily well above 6ft. he looks even today in videos and photos between 6ft 4 and 6ft 3.5
Mon said on 15/Dec/10
6'4'' 1/2 according to what he said himself in a Brit tv show about his life.
EdgarHernandez said on 9/Dec/10
i agree whit lennon, there is photos and videos of cushing and lee, and always the diference is between 6 to 5 inches in diference.
is complety laugable 5ft 8 claim
Mister_Lennon said on 2/Dec/10
I really think that Price was 6'4 and Lee 6'5 or close. Cushing was also 5'11. Only compare his height with his co-stars. For example, Oliver Reed was about 5'10 or 5'11, and Cushing was about the same height or a little bit taller.
Anonymous said on 30/Nov/10
Mistor Lennon, I'm afraid I'm not buying that.
Chris Lee 6'4
Vincent Price 6'3
Peter Cushing 5'8
k mart said on 26/Nov/10
i understand why he claimed 6'4'' instead of 6'5''.. this is because as he stated in 1999 the year sleepy hollow was made he confirmed he lost an inch of height of his peak 6'5'' and is now 6'4''.
James said on 23/Nov/10
Edgar rob saw him at a weak 6'3 though 4 years ago.
Edgar Hernandez said on 11/Nov/10
by love of good, if he lost that height it will be very, very noticiable, james, he is old(nearly 90) but good lord i envy his posture this guy walks very tall and solid
James said on 10/Nov/10
6'2.25 (189cm) today.
mrknowitall said on 3/Nov/10
i saw him and i'm 6'2" and 13, he looked about 6'3-6'4"
EdgarHernandez said on 27/Oct/10
thanks james
tubbs said on 4/Jul/09
6'2-3" range? he had a couple of inches on Iain Lee who is atleast 6'3" only 10 years ago. Is a fit man who keeps, with no obvious or documented injuries or illnesses going to have lost 3 inches in 10 years?
Anonymous said on 2/Jul/09
Doug, Lee was 3.5" taller than Moore when he was 52. He may have been even 6'5.5" or .75".
TNTinCA said on 30/Jun/09
Isn't it actually "official" that he was 6'5" at his peak? I thought that was a recorded fact because he was the tallest leading actor of his day or something like that.
Danimal said on 29/Jun/09
He was at least 6'5" peak. I'm a HUGE fan of all his Hammer and Amicus production movies from the mid 60's to the early 70's and he TOWERED 5'11"-6'0" Peter Cushing. when I say towered, I don't mean by 3-4". I'm talking about a solid half a foot or more. He claimed 6'5". I see him downplaying his height. If he was 6'5", it was in the upper regions of it. Was noticeably taller than 6'4" Donald Sutherland in the 1965 Amicus movie Dr. Terror's House of Horror.
Doug said on 29/Jun/09
Roger Moore was exactly 6'1.25" barefoot as measured by the Bond tailors. Lee was roughy 3.5 inches taller, Christopher Lee was 6'4.75" (195cm) I think this is a very accurate reading which is basically scraping 6'5" barefoot. This would seem correct right Adam? I take it you are the same Adam as on the John Wayne page. Thank god there is somebody else who is good with their estimations. A lot of people on here either claim actors are two inches shorter than they really are or they are conned into believing they are the height they are in shoes barefoot.
adam said on 19/Jun/09
Lee was definitely 6-5 peak.

In every single Hammer film he dwarfed everyone, including his good friend Peter Cushing who was at least 5-11.

He was a lot taller than Roger Moore who was 6-1.

And he was taller than Vincent Price. Type "Christopher Lee Vincent Price" in google and see.
Anonymous said on 16/Jun/09
Hayden Christensen is 6'". Mr. Lee is perhaps 3.5" taller than him in Revenge of the Sith, 4" at the most. Since that was several years ago, he is now most likely in between 6'3" and 6'3.5". Ten years ago, he was 6'4", as he himself stated, so he could not be that tall now.
Anonymous said on 15/Jun/09
According to the Bond tailors, Roger Moore was 6'1.5 barefoot. That would make Lee around 6'4.5 in his prime.
Anonymous said on 18/Apr/09
I'm sure that Lee has lost maybe a half inch because of his age but in Star Wars Episode 3 he towered almost 5 inches over Hayden Christensen who is at least 6'1".
LOL said on 10/Mar/09
he must be 6' 3.5" minimum nowdays
Anonymous said on 10/Mar/09
In The Man With The Golden Gun where he stands back to back with 6'1.5 Roger Moore he definitely has 3-4 inches over him, if he wasnt close to 6'5 back then its ridiculous.
adam said on 25/Feb/09
Lee has claimed 6-4 and even 6-3
Doug said on 15/Feb/09
I agree Tim I think Lee has not lost two inches in height even at 85 He has lost a little though, about an inch (still looking toweringly huge at 6'4" barefoot at 80 yes I know). Funny thing is Lee has always claimed he is 6'4" not any taller. Now why would the Guiness Book of Records claim he was 6'5"? He was at least 6'5" peak for sure, most people can clearly see he was taller than 6'4. Lee has lost a little height Tim because of his hunch and age but still looks 6'4" to me in recent photos with other actors. He is not 6'5" anymore Tim. Remember these are barefoot measurements, he may be 6'5" in shoes still but not barefoot.
Tim said on 14/Feb/09
God stop downgrading these guys. everywhere i go someone says someone is shorter than they actually are. or they say they've shrunk. correct me if i'm wrong but not everyone has to shrink, some people stay the same all there life, and i really do think christopher lee has. though perhaps he hunches a little more now days but he is 85. he's a legitimate 6'5 but i have heard he's over 6'6, he is definitely no shorter than 6'4 but i'd still say 6'5.

has anyone here seen lord of the rings, he was a giant in that yet he was around 80 when it came out. there is no way he is 6'3 it is not uncommon to meet someone of 6'3. and people have made such a big deal about christopher lee being a giant for a hollywood leading man and really what's the big deal about 6'3.

oh and also in a guiness book of records there is a photo of christopher lee with vince vaughn and it is almost impossible to seperate them they are so close in height and christopher lee is far older.
Doug said on 20/Jan/09
On Youtube check out Christopher Lee on Wogan from about 1986. See him stand up at the beginning of the interview. Looks toweringly huge, easily 6'5" - 6'6". Clearly over 6'4".
Ed Brady said on 13/Jan/09
Hes 6ft5 easy, in The man with the golden gun hes at least 3 inches taller standing next to 6ft2 inch roger moore.
adam said on 2/Jan/09
Tallest lead actor ever? I dont think so. Even if you dont count those horrible wrestlers and other freaks there has still been taller men playing lead roles.

Sterling Hayden was at least 6-5 and a lead actor. James Arness was around 6-7 and played a lead role a couple of times. Rock Hudson was at least 6-5 and was a leading man. Clint Walker was a leading man in some films. And there are a lot more...

So Lee was never the tallest leading man.
ANON said on 30/Dec/08
Typical,here we go again............certain individuals from a certain country are always trying to belittle (no pun intended) British celebs?
Christopher Lee is a modest chap and is 6ft 4in,by the by there's plenty of chaps over 6ft in the UK it's not just the USA,ok!!
Ed T. said on 28/Nov/08
Adam , I agree that Lee appears more like 4 inches taller than Moore ( at least in the famous back to back scene) in "The Man With The Golden Gun". Although , I don't see Moore being any taller than 6'1" barefoot and possibly only 6'0.5".
adam said on 24/Nov/08
Was he really only 2-3 inches taller than Moore? I remember that the difference was like 4 inches?

In THE DEVIL RIDES OUT Lee was around three inches taller than Charles Gray who was probably 6-2.
deano said on 18/Nov/08
when I saw Christopher lee in man with the golden gun he was from the range of 2 - 3 inches taller than roger who I take as 6 ft 1 1/2 so that would make christopher 6 ft 4 1/2 at tallest.Can someone tell me if roger was 6 ft 1 or 1 1/2 in man with the golden gun, I mean he was 45 then so does thaT MEAN HE WAS 6 FT 1 1/2 OR EVEN AT 6 FT 2.
deano said on 18/Nov/08
I think Christopher lee was at 6 ft 4 1/2 at tallest or, if you have the eveidence that he was 6 ft 5 at younger age then I guess he was.
Ed(1) said on 1/Nov/08
The Wicker Man was on TV last night, and strangely Lee looked all of 6ft3 tops in that film, and that was 1972 I believe! He didn't give off the impression of a 6ft5 man like he's done in other films!
Elf said on 22/Oct/08
I still think Lee looks near 6
adam said on 20/Oct/08
In Dr. Terror`s House Of Horrors (good film) Lee looks clearly taller than Donald Sutherland. The difference could really be as much as solid 2 inches -and Sutherland was 6-4! You cant check it on youtube.
Big King said on 25/Sep/08
I hate it when people are downgrading their heights! 6'5" or maybe 6'5 1/2" was Lee's height when he was younger.
adam said on 23/Sep/08
Never seen that film. Peck is a solid 6-3...
Anonymous said on 17/Sep/08
And just to add, he looks a lot bigger than an inch next to Gregory Peck in "Captain Horatio Hornblower."
Anonymous said on 17/Sep/08
If he is 6'4" then he wouldn't have had as much trouble as he claims he had with his height, because he would only be an inch bigger than Gregory Peck who was pretty much at the top of Hollywood, so 6'5" would be more likely because he's then a whole two inches bigger than a leading Hollywood actor.
adam said on 12/Sep/08
Lee has always been a slender man with a perfect posture. This guy seems to care about his height though he only claimes 6-4. He sure is 6-5, no doubts. Half an inch more peak? Maybe.... How they got that? I guess 6-5
Big King said on 4/Sep/08
A german website announced Lee's height as 197cm (6'5 1/2"). If this is true is the big question but Lee looked easily four inches taller than Hayden Christensen in Star Wars Episode III.
adam said on 1/Sep/08
Yep, he was 6-5.
King said on 29/Aug/08
Lee stated 6'4" but that's nonsense. He was 6'5".
Sam Troy said on 24/Jul/08
His height was a great feature when he played such characters as Dracula and Frenkenstein's monster.
Kingston said on 10/Apr/08
Lee looked at least four inches taller than Hayden Christensen in Star Wars Episode II and III.
Anonymous KinG said on 2/Apr/08
he looks much taller than 6ft3 donald sutherland to me.. hes like 6ft4.5..
Robbie H said on 20/Jan/08
he must of shrunk at least an inch now thats hes in his 80's, he looks about 6ft 3 now, 6ft 4/5 prime. in 'star wars:attack of the clones'he looked an inch taller than the 6ft 2 samuel L jackson.
joseph dean said on 9/Jan/08
well he does awsum for his age. i dunt no many 85 year olds that are 6'5. 0r if hes now 6'4 or 3 now. he is 85 after all. but a legend.
D-Lurker said on 17/Dec/07
Catsman i do remember bernard bresslaw. he was one of my favoruite creatures as a child. i thinks its 'Rell' from Krull..in the movies commentary, His height was described as 6' 5"...

unreal, lee has lost alot of height if 6'3" is correct
Anonymous said on 15/Dec/07
I've heard the character of Scaramanga being sited as 6'4", but Christopher Lee himself looks a good 6'5" standing next to 6'1" Roger Moore in The Man with the Golden Gun.
Marcelo C. said on 7/Dec/07
More of his films show him at 6
Marcelo C. said on 2/Oct/07
I do agree Michael, in "The man with the Golden Gun" 6-1 Moore looks quite shorter than Lee. So, 6 ft 5/6 will do.
Michael said on 12/Sep/07
I think it is possible that Christopher Lee was infact 6 ft 5 to 6 ft 6 ins with shoes in his younger days. He looked large in a lot of films. My aunt used to work for a television company in the 1970s and saw this very large man with big hands, which were of Lee. She never commented about his height. However, when I read a profile of the Saint and James Bond actor, Roger Moore in a Film Preview book from the late 1950s or early 1960s, it said his height was 6 ft 2 ins, which of course would make Christopher at least 3 inches or more taller in the Bond movie - The Man with the Golden Gun.
Catsman said on 12/Sep/07
He got his big break playing a monster when Bernard Bresslaw's agent asked for too much money and Hammer didn't want to pay. They were two of the tallest quality actors working in Britain in the 50, 60, and 70s so they got all those kind of parts. Rob, you should also list Bresslaw, he was a star.
Chip said on 17/Aug/07
He must keep himself in great health. He was born in 1922, and he doesn't seem like he's lost any height. Christopher Lee rules!
Mr. T said on 2/Aug/07
He's in pretty astounding shape for an old man. Much like Clint Eastwood, but Lee's voice has nearly the same gravity as it did in his youth.
glenn said on 24/Mar/07
he was a great guy.now i hear he doesnt sign much and he makes posing with him difficult.he does do it.but will sometimes not.
Jordan said on 23/Mar/07
Glenn, Lee is a cool cat, I think he would be nice to you and grant a picture.
Viper said on 23/Mar/07
Rob, are you sure he only looked 6-2-6-3 back in Oct. 2006? I thought he looked around 6-4 in fairly recent pictures.

[Editor Rob: yes, put it this way, about 10-15 minutes earlier I saw matt frewer and he gave more of a 6ft 3 impression than Mr Lee did, surprisingly.]
glenn said on 23/Mar/07
really? i saw 6-4 in 1989.i was so nervous i didnt ask for the photo with.i didnt start this yet
Brad said on 23/Mar/07
The guy was a legit 6' 5" during his Hammer Dracula films.
Glenn2 said on 14/Mar/07
i met him there about a year ago when i was with my brother. My bro is dead on 6'3 and Lee was eye to eye with him
Gotxo said on 3/Feb/07
Rob:
Let's give him a current 6'3", in an interview dating back 2001 (El mundo, Spanish newspaper) he's described as "only" a plain 190cm.
He might have declined a bit more in height but probably is quite near to it.
Jordan said on 17/Nov/06
Lee is way taller then 6'1.5 and rarely ever looks shorter then 6'3. So 6'1.5 is really unlikely. If that was the case Roger Moore would be 5'8.
Ed said on 14/Nov/06
Ralph, where do you 6ft1.5 from? It's apparent Lee has shrunk a bit, but did you see the 2005 premiere pics for Revenge of the Sith. If Lee is only 6ft1.5, than that would put Sam Jackson at 5ft11.5 and Christensen at around 5ft10. I can't see Lee anything less than 6ft2.5 or 6ft3, with Jackson at 6ft1 maybe a hair more, and Christensen at 5ft11.5. Rob saw him recently, and pegged him at about 6ft2 to 6ft3, I'm guessing that's a barefoot estimate since he didn't say, so that would put Lee at between 6ft3 and 6ft4 with shoes.
ralph said on 13/Nov/06
Like Fidel Castro, he was in the 6'4"-6'5" range at young age, but they both became old and shrunked. Both men are 6'1.5" now.
Ed said on 12/Nov/06
I completely agree Viper, I think Jackson was near 6ft2 at one time and that's it.
Viper652 said on 10/Nov/06
Jackson looks 6-1 Max now.
Ed said on 9/Nov/06
Padraig, I have no doubt in my mind Lee is shrinking, he's in his 80's. I just don't get Jackson's height it's all over the place. If he's 6ft2 now(used to be taller), how could Bruce Willis be almost the same height as him in Diehard With A Vengeance, when Willis is listed at 5ft11.5. Ll Cool J looked taller than him in Swat, and Christensen the same height in Revenge of the Sith, but obviously smaller in the pic below. If Lee was say 6ft3.5 in 2002 when the shot was taken below, he still has near 2 inches on Jackson, and near 4 on Christensen.
Ed said on 8/Nov/06
If Lee is being knocked down to 6ft3 these days, than Samuel Jackson needs a downgrade to 6ft1, and Hayden Christensen to 5ft11.5. Just look at the pic below of Lee, Jackson, Christensen, and Lucas. Jackson is at least 2 inches shorter, putting him at 6ft2 with shoes, and Lee at 6ft4 with shoes, and Christensen would be 5ft11.5 without shoes, and 6ft0.5 with.

[Padraig: And the word being 'these days'. Since Rob saw him in October 2006, not 2002, and says NOW he is closer to 6 feet 3. In 80's you are likely to be losing height.

Jackson is 6 feet 2 though, not more.]
Franco said on 11/Oct/06
i'm 6'4" (1.93cm) exactly and i saw Christopher Lee on 2 occasions in Italy walking in the streets of Venice he was purchasing a little gift (arlecchino doll) and i said hi to him, i noticed he was about 1 - 1.5cm taller than me so i guess he is 1.93cm, and i agree his posture is great. really kind man and he even joked with a few italian words he knew. :-D excellent actor too.

so from personal experience i'd say he his real height is 1.94cm and with shoes about 1.95cm, i say so because i am 1.94cm with shoes and since he was 1cm taller and the street was EVEN, then he is 1.95cm with shoes and 1.94cm without.
he can't be 1.93cm because that would make me 1.92cm (unless i shrink that day) lol which is highly unlikely.
Mikex said on 11/Oct/06
Jordan, yeah Lee had trouble getting acting parts when young because he was tall. This was at a time when 6ft was tall let alone 6'5''. Also he had dark exotic looks at a time when the preference in leading men was for those with typical Anglo-Saxon features. It's seems to have worked out for him in the end though. His distinctiveness seems to have aided his longevitivity.
Stephen said on 11/Oct/06
At least 6'4" without shoes. I'd say about 6'4.5". Great actor!
venus said on 10/Oct/06
He has a small frame for his height,very thin but I don't buy that he is 6'5.Maybe a half inch shy of 6'5. He has great posture. He appears to have taken very good care of himself in his old age.
Jordan said on 19/Sep/06
Mario
You are correct. Personally I dont think Lee wants to be refered to as a giant so he says he is 6'4. Remenber, in lee's bio it states he had a hard time getting jobs b/c of his height. I think lee rounds himeself down to 6'4, but in reality he is taller.
Ball-A-Hallic said on 30/Aug/06
in the pics below i say jackson and hayden are both 6'1 will lee is a solid 6'4
Mario said on 17/Jul/06
A lot of tall actors seems to be round there height down or at least that is what I think.
Editor Rob said on 16/Jul/06
In a 1977 interview he also said "I'm 6ft 4".
Anthony said on 8/Jul/06
I was watching a making of documentary for "The Man With The Golden Gun" the other day, and they were discussing Herve Villechaze, who I believe was somewhere between 3'6 and 3'9, and they mention Lee's height as being 6'4.

Personally, I think he was 6'5 in his prime. The man obviously takes very good care of himself and probably has very good posture as he hardly appears to have shrunk at all.
Gonzalo said on 1/Jun/06
Someone said in Donald Sutherland page, that Lee was an inch taller than Sutherland, so 6`5 for Lee sounds about right
Almost 40 and no girlfriend said on 26/May/06
well editor Rob again was that height with or without shoes? Most people quote their with shoes height, not barefooted height.
Joe22 said on 26/May/06
Chris lee is i think officially recognised as the tallest actor in a lead role at 6'5", i dunno would that honour pass to vince vaughn now that hes making it big in movies, vince is like 6'5". I know Lees 6'4" now due to his age and posture, but hes always been a presence on the big screen, being 6'4" myself i admire the credit hes given tall people on screen. By the way heres one for the movie/height buffs..has anyone seen The Legend of Fu Manchu starring Lee? You should check out Lees sidekick in it, the chinese guy looks to be 6'8-9"!! Hes huge, Lee himself remarking afterwards that the lad was "head and shoulders over me"
Editor Rob said on 26/May/06
"By the time I was 17 years old I was 6ft 4" - from biography.
Viper652 said on 26/May/06
Almost, there is no way in the world Sam Jackson is as short as 5-11. So you think he wears lifts? The absolute shortest he could be is 6-0.5 barefoot, but I think hes pretty much 6-1.
Almost 40 and still watching wrestling said on 24/May/06
well Chris Lee is probably 6-4 in shoes, or 6-2+ to 6-3ish without shoes. Now 6-4 is a very tall man, you don't see many 6-4 people walking around period. Jordan is about 6-6 with shoes, so about 2 inches taller than Lee. Roger Moore is about 6feet+ with shoes, or 5-10+ to 5-11 without. Samuel L.'s wax statue at Madam Toussant is about 5-11, but he might be 6 feet or a bit over with shoes on in real life. So Lee's got 4 inches on both of them with shoes on, that's a big difference especially on film.
Viper652 said on 23/May/06
Almost 40 is downgrading everyone to ridiculous levels.
sam said on 23/May/06
OK, let's imagine that Samuel L. Jackson is 5'11":
that would make John Travolta about 5'9", Kevin Spacey & Colin Farrell about 5'7", Robert De Niro around 5'5", Ben Affleck just over 5'10"...I could go on but this is just crazy talk.
Ed said on 22/May/06
This is getting comical, there's no way Sam Jackson is 5ft11! I know a lot of these stars are shorter in real life, but that's a little absurd. Unless it can be proven, I'll say for now Lee is 6ft3 1/2 barefoot, and Jackson is 6ft1 to 6ft1.5 barefoot, with Christensen pushing 6ft. Jackson has always been tall in all his films for too many years, 5ft11 is hilarious.
Jason said on 22/May/06
There looked like about 4 inches between Moore and Lee in that back to back shot in The Man with the Golden Gun. I would say Moore was about 6'0 1/2'' and Lee about 6'4 1/2''. I agree with you Michael Jordan is only 6'4 1/2'' minus shoes, though. He might seem a little taller than Lee because he has a small head and thus more body length.
Almost 40 and still watching wrestling said on 22/May/06
Roger Moore is not 6-1, he's a normal sized man who's around 6 feet with shoes. Lee was taller than Moore in Man with Golden Gun but no way is there 5 inches separating them, at most 3 or 4 inches, which would make Lee about 6-4 with shoes, or 6-2ish without, which by the way, is very tall.

Samuel L. Jackson is about 5-11, saw a life-sized statue of him at Madam Toussaint's at time square, not a tall man.

Again, Michael Jordan is 6-4.5 barefooted, Chris Lee is NOT taller than or same height as Jordan. No way.
J-Dog said on 20/May/06
Who usually gets 2" of height from their shoes? I have running shoes and boots and both of them give me 3/4" of an inch and the boots gives me 1 and 1/4" inch of height. And secondly let's not go too crazy no way is Samuel L. Jackson only 5'11" 6'0". He looks big near Samuel L Jackson.
Ed said on 20/May/06
I suppose the shortest I could go with for Lee would be 6ft3+ barefoot these days. He's in his 80's now so I'm sure he shrunk a bit, but he was just to tall back in the day to be anything less than 6ft4.5 to 6ft5 barefoot. Look at The Wicker Man, The Man with the Golden Gun, Dracula, even more recent movies like Lord of the Rings and Sleepy Hollow, the guy has consistently loomed over everyone else in the casts. When he stood back to back with the 6ft1 Roger Moore, in TMWTGG he was way taller, easily 5 inches.
OnCapeCod said on 20/May/06
Lee is a VERY tall man met him at the MOMA in NYC (1986-7?) and he possesses a HUGE physical presence much more than any other actor I have seen.
Jason said on 20/May/06
I would guess about 6'4 1/2'' in his prime and a flat 6'4'' today. I don't think he's lost much height to speak of suprisingly.
Glenn said on 20/May/06
Get a girlfriend.
Almost 40 and still watching wrestling said on 20/May/06
so you are saying Lee is as tall as Michael Jordan? Are you kidding me??? If Lee is 6-6 with shoes on, he would look like a giant, he looks tall, but not like a giant, on the big screen. 6-4 with shoes.
Ed said on 19/May/06
There's no way Lee is only 6ft2+ in his barefeet, and 6ft4 with shoes. Scroll down this page and look at the pic under Editor Rob's name, the one with Sam Jackson, George Lucas, and Hayden Christensen. If Lee is only 6ft2+ barefoot, with shoes he'd be maybe just pushing 6ft4. If that's the case what is Sam Jackson 6ft barefoot, and 6ft1.5 with shoes because there's clearly a big difference in height between those two. Christensen would be 5ft10 with shoes on in that pic if that's the case. There's at least 5 to 6 inches between Christensen and Lee, and 3+ between Sam Jackson and Lee.

[Editor Rob: you never know, lee could be in lifts ;-) Maybe after seeing Lucas' extensive collection at skywalker ranch he borrowed a pair!]
Almost 40 and no girlfriend said on 19/May/06
right, 6-4 with shoes on.
Glenn said on 19/May/06
He is 6-4 barefoot in his prime.I met him when I was a kid.he was the tallest person in a building full of people.everyone was commenting on his height.sweet guy then.heard this changed.
Gonzalo said on 19/May/06
He has always looked very tall in his movies. I think he was definitely 6`5 in his prime. He towers over everybody
Almost 40 and no girlfriend said on 18/May/06
Well Lee says he's 6-4, and I think that's a with shoes measurement, so about 6-2+ without shoes. 6-4 barefooted would make him about 6-6 with shoes, an astounding height for movies. Michael Jordan is 6-4+ without shoes and look how big he looks on TV, even compared to Sat. Nite Live's Kevin Neelan, who is over 6 feet himself. No way is Lee as tall as Michael Jordan. Come on now!
del Mar said on 30/Apr/06
Can someone please tell me what the Billy Crudup trick is?!
Ed said on 27/Apr/06
So he's 6ft2, that's hilarious! So Sam Jackson is 5ft11/6ft, and Christensen 5ft9/5ft10? It's all clear now!
30 something and no girlfriend said on 27/Apr/06
lee got seriously boosted in height here, i mean he's 6-2, close to 6-4 with shoes and yet he's listed as 6-5 barefooted, lol. if he's 6-5 barefooted, that means he's close to 6-7 with shoes, ludicrous.
Ed said on 21/Apr/06
So if he is shorter, which is possible considering his age, what does that make Sam Jackson, Mckellan,and Christensen? If he's only 6ft3 now a days, than the rest of those actors are a lot shorter, than their projected heights. That picture with him and Loken is at kind of an odd angle. Almost looking up at the two of them, and she looks like she's wearing big heeled boots. Still. could he have shrunk that much in 3 1/2 to 4 years?
sam said on 21/Apr/06
Based on the Loken and McKellen pictures, I think the guy's just starting to shrink. He has stood impressively tall for a long time, but he is turning 84 this year after all. He looks like he loomed rather taller just a couple years in those pictures with Samuel L. Jackson, Hayden Christensen and George Lucas.
Lone said on 20/Apr/06
Lee is absolutely not 6-5. 6-3 max judging from the McKellen and Roger Moore photo. Roger is more like 5-11. He could be 6-4, no way is he 6-5.

[Editor Rob: I'd yet to change the above part of this page, here's a pic (slight favor towards loken) of Lee and 5ft 11 Loken (in heel?)]
Mikex said on 18/Apr/06
When he started acting he was told he was too tall and exotic looking to play an Englishman.
Paul said on 18/Apr/06
Most people do start to significantly shrink as they move past 75 or 80 but Lee defies this rule. He is 6'4 minimum even now as Rob and Ed say.
Ed said on 17/Apr/06
Rob, I'm not the most computer savvy person, and I saved a few pics from the Hayden Christensen site, but I'm not quite sure how to post them. I'm sure you have other sites to look into, but if you can, go to( desiringhayden.net)and look under gallery, followed by public appearances, and then choose 2002, there is under Attack of the Clones London Premiere, May 14th, 2002, Several really good shots of Christopher Lee, Samuel L. Jackson, and Hayden Christensen standing together. There are some good full shots of them, with them lined up in a row, standing right next to each other, all with what appears to be normal footwear. Lee towers over all of them, including Jackson who is considerably taller than Christensen. I thought you might find these interesting to post since I'm slightly retarted in that department!
Ed said on 16/Apr/06
Rob, he has to be standing on his toes with Lee, if he indeed is 5ft10 that would make Lee 6ft2ish. I highly doubt that, in that case do check out the Christensen site if you can, because Lee still towers over all of them, including Sam Jackson, who now would be lowered to 6ft if Lee is 6ft2.5 now! I can't buy it.

[Editor Rob: McKellen has pulled a Crudup before, so you never know...it is possible with Lee]
Elio said on 16/Apr/06
You know when you've been 'Cru-duped'.
Ed said on 15/Apr/06
So does he stand on his toes, is that the technique? Because in the shot of Lee and Mckellan there's no more than 2.5 inches between them. That's hilarious, the guy is not 6ft2.5. Anychance Rob you checked the Hayden Christensen site I mentioned on the Christensen Height page. There's some questionable shots of Lee and Christensen on there,and I'd be interested in your opinion!

[Editor Rob: no, that's the Crudup technique]
Frank2 said on 15/Apr/06
Poor Chris has shrunk! And a lot! But he's now about 84 so I can understand why.

And that photo of McKellen and Stewart proves that Stewart is no more than 5'8"! Those shoes on McKellon look like some bizarre type of sandals. And he looks to have a bandage on one foot. And we can't tell if Stewart is wearing lifts, but in that shot seeing he's about two inches shorter, I doubt it. He wasn't wearing lifts when I spoke to him.
Ed said on 15/Apr/06
So is Bloom really 5ft11, Mckellan 5ft10, Mortensen 5ft11, and Bean 5ft11?

[Editor Rob: surprisingly here is recent shot of Christopher Lee and McKellen

as for McKellen, well the 5ft 10.5 might match with Frank2's estimate for Stewart, although McKellen's footwear is bizarre in This picture as is his suit!

I don't know about McKellen, maybe bad posture at times? A few long-time readers know the in-joke about 'The McKellen Technique'

Mckellen and 6ft 2 Owen Teale who really is that tall ;-) Of course in reality McKellen is pulling the Billy Crudup trick]

Glenn said on 14/Apr/06
To confuse you even more Bloomed looked 5-11 to me.I got your back Frank.wait,that dont sound right either!
Anonymous said on 14/Apr/06
Well, if that's the case then some changes are in order. I've been willing to take a new perspective on all heights that I've had preconceived notions about. If Mckellan is indeed 5ft10, than my suspicion of Bloom being shorter would make sense. I'm still puzzled by Mortensen and Bean though. In Patriot Games there didn't seem to be much of a difference with him and Harrison Ford. Unless Ford is only 5ft11ish. In all the scenes in the Lord of the Rings movies Mckellan seems the tallest of the Fellowship. In all premiere photos and candid behind the scenes footage the same applies. Maybe all these guys are just a lot shorter than they seem on film.
Frank2 said on 14/Apr/06
Thanks Glenn. When I saw him he was standing up straight.....well maybe not straight....wrong word. Erect.....no....worse! Well, he was standing tall! How's that?
Glenn said on 14/Apr/06
Frank is right.in fact,he was hunched over,and I thought he was my height.
Frank2 said on 14/Apr/06
I saw McLellan in the lobby of the Shrine during the Oscars. I walked right past him and I was slightly taller. Then I saw him as we were leaving.
Ed said on 13/Apr/06
That's interesting Frank2 that you say Mckellan is only 5ft10 because that would make Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, and Sean Bean all 5ft10 or less. The 4 of them in the Lord of the Rings films are all almost identical in height with Rob's listings at 5ft10.5 for Bloom, 5ft10.5for Bean, 5ft11 for Mortensen,and5ft11.5 for Mckellan. If Mckellan is 5ft10 and not 5ft11.5 then is Mortensen 5ft9.5, and Bloom and Bean only 5ft9 each? You said you saw him, does that mean you met him up close or viewed him from a distance? Just curious.
Frank2 said on 10/Apr/06
I met Lee at Universal back in the very early 1980's and he was at least 6'4" and could have been 6'5". But not 6'6". No way. Ian McKellan is about 5'10". At least that's how tall he looked to me when I saw him. What surprised me was how much taller Peter Cushing was in person. In all those Hammer films he did with Lee he looked short. Then after I realized that Lee was at least 6'4" I came to think that Cushing was 5'10". Then I met him and he was my height! So Peter could have been 6' when he was younger and Lee 6'5".
Ed said on 9/Apr/06
6ft4 sounds totally accurate for Christopher Lee. In The Lord of the Rings films he stands toe to toe with Lawrence Maokore(the Uruk Hai Chief Lurtz) who is 6ft4, and Lee is still a bit taller. He looks a good 5 inches taller than the 5ft11 Ian Mckellan(Gandalf) when they are walking together in the Fellowship Of the Ring. As far as the Star Wars films go, he definitely shows his height when sharing the screen with the 6ft Hayden Christensen and 5ft9.5 Ewan Mcgregor. How about his cameo in Willy Wonka, in his scenes with the 5ft10 Johnny Depp he looks massive. I think he was 6ft5 maybe more in his younger days, the man is in his 80's and has put on a few pounds in his later years. Still, for those interested I mentioned this on the Hayden Christensen height page, that if you check Hayden's fansite, it's ridiculously called DesiringHayden.net and look up pics in the gallery area of the Star Wars film premieres, in particular Revenge of the Sith, you'll see how much taller Christopher Lee is than any other cast member save Peter Mayhew(Chewbacca). The two of them dwarf everyone else!
Meathead320 said on 9/Apr/06
I would also put him at 6'4", but you could also call him 6'5". My reason for this is that taller people, even men, will round down when it actually hurts them to be taller.

I know a guy who is 6'6.75", most people think he is 6'8"-6'10", and he is infact closer to 6'7" than 6'6", but since he is just a hair under 6'7" he rounds DOWN and says 6'6" to make his weight, 350 pounds at his heaviest, sound more impressive. He is a bodybuilder and that is a sport (if you want to call it that) where tall height, especially rarely tall height, actually hurts you. Some of the shorter ones will round up, but the ones who want their weight to sound more impressive will round down.

Now what does this have to do with Christopher Lee who is skinny as a broom stick? Well it is for a different reason, but in his proffesion extreem height can be a limiting factor, when trying to get roles as a "leading man", or other main roles that do NOT call for extreem height, or playing a villian in a role where it would NOT be good to make the opposite leading man seem short.

So he Probably rounds down from 6'4.5" or even 6'4.75", and says 6'4", when he is infact closer to 6'5".

Ok that is my $ 0.02 on why some taller guys might round down.

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, shoe or bra 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.