How tall was Roger Moore - Page 2

Add a Comment1148 comments

Average Guess (167 Votes)
6ft 1.15in (185.8cm)
RichardSpain said on 27/Jun/17
Moore was a perfect 185cm in peak, barefoot.

Moore 185cm peak
Brosnan 186cm in peak
Connery 188/189cm in peak.
Craig 178 cm
James said on 7/Jun/17
Roger Waters was 6'1" at his peak so he was an inch taller than Moore.
lak said on 7/Jun/17
@MJKoP i know that , but some guys here say arnold was just 183 or less
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jun/17
It's hard to see Moore as the same height as Roger Waters and James Garner...
James said on 6/Jun/17
Moore might have been 6'1" when he was 20, but as James Bond he never looked any more than six foot.
Christian-196.5cm (6ft5 3/8) said on 4/Jun/17
James said on 1/Jun/17
Schwarzenegger is 5'11".


I agree, 5'11" nowadays.
Canson said on 3/Jun/17
6'1.5 looks good.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Jun/17
Moore might've lost a fraction by then...but peak they may have been similar.

Both could look from 6ft1 up to 6ft2
James said on 1/Jun/17
Schwarzenegger is 5'11".
MJKoP said on 30/May/17
Houss said on 24/May/17
He was shorter than Arnold swharzenegger

Because Arnie was taller than 6'1.5"
Mark(5'9.25") said on 30/May/17
Rest In Peace, Sir Moore.

Also, 6'1.5" in his glory days.
Leo2001 said on 29/May/17
With Arnie
Click Here
RichardSpain said on 29/May/17
Rest in peace Mr Moore! and thanks for your movies. Everybody all countries love you.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 28/May/17
Nah Brosnan's meant to be a gent aswell. Connery and Lazenby have reputations for being bullies though
Csimpson 6ft said on 26/May/17
How did he die Rob? i only heard aboutin his death a few days ago, was it old age or cancer or something? i cant believe it thats so sad and devastating to hear, he was a great person, kind, funny and full of charisma and one of the best bonds

R.I.P Sir Roger Moore
Editor Rob
he did battle cancer in last few months, late 80's is a long life, he entertained a lot of people and also with humanitarian work, contributed a lot.
Houss said on 24/May/17
He was shorter than Arnold swharzenegger
Sandy Cowell said on 24/May/17
Another of our golden greats gone, but never to be forgotten. He was a true English gent and a credit to the acting industry. Can't believe it... 😭

RIP Roger xxx
Johnny said on 24/May/17
Rest in peace Sir Roger. One of the best actors of all time.
Bazza said on 24/May/17
Best Bond for me, and the one i enjoyed watching growing up.amazing to think he was already 45 when he took on the role and 58 by the time of his last Bond film!
Phantasm Tall Man said on 24/May/17
Rest in peace, always the coolest bond!
shiva 181 cms said on 23/May/17
I just commented yesterday about sir Roger's height

came to know he passed away at 89, one of the best James bond ever , also a good person
Glad he made it to 89. Rip sir Roger Moore
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/May/17
I do think that Moore was taller than most people give him credit for and I'm not saying that because he's now passed (still hasn't sunk in with me yet). He shared the screen with some big men like Yaphett Kotto, Christopher Lee, Curt Jurgens and Jeffrey Holder. Richard Kiel wasn't a great person to compare height against because he'd make anyone look average or short. But when you see him next to guys a bit closer to his range like Julian Glover (6ft2), Michael Lonsdale (6ft1) or Christopher Walken (6ft0½) the listed height isn't unreasonable.
Nik said on 23/May/17
@ Arch Stanton

I agree with everything you said, R.I.P Sir Roger Moore.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/May/17
Another giant of cinema gone...

Scarlett Rose said on 23/May/17
Currently watching reruns of "The Persuaders!" on True Entertainment at 9.00pm. The brilliant theme tune is by the equally brilliant John Barry. RIP Sir Roger Moore. 😞
Mario said on 23/May/17
Rip, 6 ft 1.5.
James B said on 23/May/17

Will never see an actor quite like you ever again
MJKoP said on 23/May/17
Back to 6'1.5". RIP
Arch Stanton said on 23/May/17
If you see him with Prince Phillip who was nearer 6 ft prime Roger was MUCH taller, didn't look under 6 ft with him even in his last years.
Arch Stanton said on 23/May/17
Best remembered.... Rob. Another great one passes away, he had a good innings at 89 though. RIP Sir Roger. Your light hearted appariach to acting and suave demeanor will always be remembered, a true gentleman.
Editor Rob
89 is a very good age, may he rest in peace...
HeightMan said on 15/May/17
I think Roger Moore was taller than most people think. He's probably the most unpopular Bond so people underestimate them. Popularity always makes people taller; e.g. the Rock is loved but it is hard to argue the dude was ever over 1.88. Connery wasn't over 1.88 either. Craig is lower than 1.78. Moore faced tall opponents in his movies. The bad guys in "live and let die" were over 6'3''(!), Richard Kiel is self-explanatory, Drax in Moonraker was also 6'1''...

1.87 for Moore, most of the day!
Arch Stanton said on 14/May/17
In Gold (1974) Roger Moore had about 1.5 inches on Milland who was 186 peak but had lost height. I do think Moore looked a legit 187 in that film.
HeightMan said on 7/May/17
Compare for yourself, here is an old-ish Roger Moore (1996) with Harald Schmidt who is a solid 194cm guy...

Click Here
berta said on 5/May/17
6foot 1 or 186 at peak either of them would be good listings and today i dont think for a second he oculd still be 6 feet. 180is probably his current height
James said on 5/May/17
He's 5'10" now.
Rory said on 3/May/17
I dont think he ever really looked 6ft 2 even in the Saint days. He certainly didn't give as tall an impression on screen as someone like Connery. I reckon peak he fell to 186cm at night. No idea what he'd be today but I'd guess 5'11 range.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Apr/17
187cm peak is believable. Go back to before Bond. Could look 6ft2 at times
berta said on 12/Apr/17
there is a few guys on this site that say everyone is 4 cm shorter than their listing and always say " he is wearing lifts" this is very bad backtalking. If you dont know personally that a guy wears lifts dont say it . tell rumours is a bad thing. this guy is clear as day he didnt wear lifts and he was atleast 6 foot 1. not shorter could have been taller but if he was i dont think he was over 186. cant see this guy taller than costner.
James said on 3/Apr/17
"The Man Who Haunted Himself" had the usual hilarious Hollywood view of London.
Sandy Cowell said on 2/Apr/17
I'm currently watching an enormously entertaining little film called, 'The Man Who Haunted Himself'! If I'd known just how entertaining it would be, I wouldn't have gone downstairs for an extended tea break, thus missing a large chunk of it!
It was made in 1970, when the naughtiest word used in film was 'bloody', (and there's a lot of that!), and an insult is being called an 'old croc, ha ha yah' and if someone's cross, it's like, 'what the Devil do you think you're doing?'
I've been laughing my butt off!
Roger is getting in all sorts of trouble with his wife, his pretty girlfriend who he barely knows and being shown the way to the psychiatrist's waiting room! That's because there are two of him!
He died on an operating table and that resulted in the creation of another one, exactly the same - how very scientific!!!
I was expecting Roger to be tall and he is! 6ft1-2 was my estimate, and he is bang in the middle at 6ft1.5! I am pleased with that!
I also find myself liking him beyond all expectations, as I am NOT a Bond fan! He is quite a gent in this yarn instead of the conceited, self-serving Bond! Of course, with the year being 1970, Roger is at his peak height.
Z187 said on 31/Mar/17
He's no shorter than Michael Caine, maybe a tad taller if anything... Click Here
mister_lennon said on 31/Mar/17
He was 6'1.
James said on 30/Mar/17
He's 5'10" today, so he was clearly never 6'2".
Mark(5'9.25") said on 29/Mar/17
Big six one peak. 187 cm is right.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Mar/17
I think both Brosnan and Moore were 187cm peak
Adijos said on 19/Mar/17
Peak: 6'2"
Now: 6'1"
Stalin said on 16/Mar/17
Rob, Farell is least 272 at his heaviest
Stalin said on 14/Mar/17
Rob, is Farrell 272 One now
Johnny said on 11/Mar/17
@Rob do you think Sir Roger could have edged out Cary Grant?
AlexMahone said on 11/Mar/17
I posted this photo earlier but I post now again.

Click Here

We don't know, how many height lost Patrick Duffy now but I don't think that so many because he was way taller than 6'0" Brenda Strong and Strong wore high heels in the 2012 Dallas series promo photos. So what do you think Rob about this photo?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 10/Mar/17
He's probably lost 2in by now
AlexMahone said on 10/Mar/17
Uhhhh....Rob....the James guy again! Well, Arch has right. You gave him a warning, I hope this is a FINAL warning before the ban, and seemed to me that his tone was a little bit more endurable but now....this. He tell us the same old crap again and again and again. Moore wore wig, Moore wore lifts and all the tall man in this board are lift wearers according to James.

This is really ridiculous now.

And mister-lennon has right as well. The lift thing is just crap.
mister_lennon said on 8/Mar/17
He was 6'1 peak. 6 is too low for him.
and proof that he said that lifts him???
this lifts things is getting so old an annoying.
Arch Stanton said on 7/Mar/17
Rob, why is James still permitted to post on celebheights? Every comment he makes just looks like trolling. He knows that people will react to his claims about lifts.
Editor Rob
he's been given a warning to tone it down a bit...
James said on 7/Mar/17
No he wasn't. He admitted wearing lifts and a hairpiece. He was never above six foot. He even had plastic surgery while he was playing Bond.
mister_lennon said on 6/Mar/17
the lifts thing is just crap.
moore was 6'1 peak. maybe 6 in his last bond films. but a true 6'1 guy at peak.
James said on 4/Mar/17
He admitted wearing lifts and a hairpiece in "The Saint" and as James Bond. He was never more than six foot.
talker said on 2/Mar/17
i stood next to Roger Moore in Switzerland in the late 1970s when he was in his fifties,and the peak height is right on,he was still 1.87 at the time,no shorter and no taller.
mister_lennon said on 2/Mar/17
6'1 peak. Less than 6'1 peak for him is just absurd trolling.
James said on 28/Feb/17
He was six foot.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Feb/17
He was definitely close to 6ft2 in The Persuaders
movieguy said on 22/Feb/17
Click Here. Although I've gone for the 6'1'' to 6'2'' range previously. In this clip he is the same height as 5'10'' to 5'11'' Michael Parkinson. Maybe Moore had already lost height though.
berta said on 21/Feb/17
rob what about lower his peak to 186?
James said on 17/Jan/17
Terry-Thomas was 5'11" in 1971.
AlexMahone said on 17/Jan/17
In The Persuaders Moore looked tall at least 6'2 or very-very close to it. He was couple of centimeters taller than Terry Thomas so the 6'2 claim is right or this 187cm peak height what Rob gave him.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Jan/17
187cm peak is fair for both Moore and Brosnan
Rory said on 18/Dec/16
I never really got a solid 6ft 2 impression from Moore in anything he starred in, that's why I'm slightly sceptical of this 6'1.5 listing as I feel a 187cm leading man would pull off 6ft 2 most of the time, but to me he always looked under it. 6'1.5 at midday is probable which makes this current listing reasonable but after a day on set probably 186cm flat.
James said on 26/Nov/16
Mike Read said Moore wore lifts an "The Saint" and was already losing his hair.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Nov/16
And it's not as if it's just the odd claim, James claims multiple times every day that tall actors wore lifts, to the point that it's verging on trolling at times. Evidence?
AlexMahone said on 26/Nov/16
Rory, great post, you are absolutely right.
Rory said on 25/Nov/16
Because you've absolutely nothing to back up the claims they wore lifts. In which case I can only guess you're accusing them of lift wearing as youre jealous of their height and keen to downgrade them. If you can provide even one piece of evidence to support that Roger, or any of the other millions of celebrity lift wearers in your opinion wore lifts I'd salute you and apologise.
James said on 25/Nov/16
How is a "loser" to point out that some actors wore lifts in films?
carl198cm said on 24/Nov/16
james is such a loser, he must be 170cm
James said on 22/Nov/16
He could look 6'2" in "The Saint" because he wore lifts.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 19/Nov/16
In The Saint he could pass for a 6ft2 guy at times. He'd had very good posture.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 19/Nov/16
Connery: 188-189cm
Caine: 187-188cm
Moore: 186-187cm
Rory said on 11/Nov/16
If he was a solid 187 then Michael Caine was a solid 188.5 which few people have ever tried to argue. Most judge him to have been 187-8. I think nearer 186 at night is more feasible for Moore.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 10/Nov/16
Solid 187cm guy in the 60's-70's. By his last Bond movie 185-186cm
mister_lennon said on 7/Nov/16
Moore was 6'1 peak. In the 80s, maybe he had lost some heigth and was about a strong 6 footer.
And he never wore lifts.
Josh Jeffords said on 6/Nov/16
Always looked and stood 6 foot plus even into his forties.
Doubt he regularly wore much footwear had many barefoot shots still tall.
Greg still has him beat into the 80s so he was not over 6 2.
As for his bond he was average height and ability lazy eye was bad Dalton was ok but Connery did it first.
Craig is hit or miss obviously short for role also too intense.
Brosnan was good not any taller than Moore better actor.
James said on 6/Nov/16
Moore was six foot. He always wore lifts.

People only liked Bond films because they wanted to pretend that Britain still mattered after World War II.
mister_lennon said on 6/Nov/16
This james/tom guy has an obsession with lifts.
again, moore was about 185 or 186 at peak. He didnt need lifts.
James said on 6/Nov/16
45 is well into middle age. Connery was 31 when he played Bond and Lazenby was 29.

Moore was shorter than Brosnan, and two inches shorter than Connery.
Bruno said on 5/Nov/16
Taller than Brosnan, very little between him and Connery and as he said himself any man over 5'10" could play Bond.
Bruno said on 5/Nov/16
Well James you seem to have some major axe to grind with this man. BTW too old at 45 get a grip man.
Rory said on 5/Nov/16
James the things you're saying are hardly big revelations are they. We know he was the oldest Bond, as for the shortest till Craig it's debatable. I thought Brosnan gave off a taller impression on screen than Moore did, but then if Brosnan rly was taller than Moore it's hard to explain why a peak Brosnan only looks half an inch taller than a 67 yr old Moore.

http:/ /
James said on 4/Nov/16
No Bruno, I wasn't alive in 1973. I've no idea why they replaced 29-year-old Lazenby with somebody who was close to retirement age. Moore was the oldest Bond by far, and the shortest until Craig.
jessman said on 3/Nov/16
I stood about 5 yards from Ryan Tubridy in 2009. He is not 6'2.5 inches. At most he is 6'1, his very slim build makes appear taller. He stands and greets his guests as they come on and has been noticeably shorter- four inches easily - than genuine 6'5 guys like Tim Robbins and Paul O'Connell. Niall Quinn, a strong 6'4, was also quote a bit taller. Roger is probably 5'11 max today, 6'1 max at his peak.
James said on 3/Nov/16
Moore was six foot in 1983. He was two inches shorter than Connery and Caine.

He always wore lifts in films.
Editor Rob
James, if 1/10th of the actors in Hollywood wore lifts or elevators, I'd be able to retire on the commissions!
AlexMahone said on 3/Nov/16
Rob, in the future I will ignore this James guy. This was a simple test. He reacted/responded always when somebody describe his opinion and then come the "wore wig/lift" bullbagoogle and the off topic. A little bit pathetic...
Bruno said on 2/Nov/16
You must have missed out on the James Bond role in 73 and have an axe to grind with Sir Roger.
Rory said on 2/Nov/16
No. In 1983 he would have been 6'1 flat, about one quarter of an inch or so below his prime.
James said on 2/Nov/16
Moore was six foot in 1983. He was at least two inches shorter than Connery and Caine. He is 5'10" today at 90.
James said on 1/Nov/16
Moore was the shortest Bond until Craig, as well as the oldest by far. Even Connery said it was strange having a 60-year-old playing the part.
Bruno said on 31/Oct/16
Saw Roger on an Irish Chat show last week, came across as a real gent and looked well for 89. The host Ryan Tubridy is supposed to be 6'2.5'' and Roger looked no more than 2'' shorter and he was wearing soft low heeled shoes.
movieguy said on 31/Oct/16
6'1'' or 6'2'' people are common in everyday life so I don't find it impossible to believe that some famous people are actually quite tall. Moore may have claimed 6'2'' while being only 6'1'' and a bit, in my experience most men state their height as a little more than it probably is. Unless you have been measured at the doctors office with a stadiometer (prob spelt that wrong) which few people have it is likely difficult to be certain about your height.
AlexMahone said on 29/Oct/16
Oh, I forgot...Moore was about 6'1" in 1983. :)
AlexMahone said on 29/Oct/16
Moore was close to 6'2" in his prime and Michael Caine was a true 188cm. :-)
James said on 27/Oct/16
Moore was never 6'2". He was six foot in 1983.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Oct/16
Rob, is 6ft2 early morning believable for Moore?
Editor Rob
straight out of bed it is...maybe he could shrink a full inch and be as low as 6ft 1-1.25 at night
Arch Stanton said on 18/Oct/16
@Rob, no tag for Bond actors? I would link together any actor or actress who appeared in a Bond film!
Editor Rob
well I did start one for Bond Villains, but I think maybe putting all of the actors together is better.
James said on 16/Oct/16
Michael Caine was 6'1".

Lee Marvin made those remarks in jest.
newbie said on 14/Oct/16
If Caine is 6'2, which I'm happy to believe, then Moore to me seems like touching 6'1 from the earliest images of the 2 together and possibly touching 6'0 these days. On the subject of being slight - anyone Lee Marvin described as a big, genuinely tough guy isn't slight or a wimp. If anything he did too good a job of becoming what he wasn't in terms of class when he became an actor that he lost the outer layer of the rougher, working class guy he was.
James said on 11/Oct/16
He always wore lifts like Richard Burton and Stewart Granger.
Csimpson 6ft said on 10/Oct/16
What would you say would be most likely for moore for his peak Rob? 186cm or 187cm?
Editor Rob
either, 6ft 1 3/8th even!
Rory said on 10/Oct/16
I think in his youth and in the first couple of Bonds he was a solid 186cm in the evening, but by View to a kill I reckon he was 185cm flat, only just edged Walken who was probably 183.5.
Csimpson 6ft said on 8/Oct/16
Rob, 6ft 1 flat for Moore as Bond?
Editor Rob
6ft 1.25 is always a probable figure.
movieguy said on 7/Oct/16
I think that the height given on the site is probably the best estimate at 6'1.5''. Moore was a tall guy. It's possible that he was only 6'1'' flat but that is the very lowest I would go with and suspect he was probably a bit Moore if you forgive the pun.
AlexMahone said on 6/Oct/16
And? You continuously posts the same false information. This is off topic now.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Oct/16
Rob, do you he had lost a bit by the time he did his last Bond movie?
Editor Rob
it is likely in mid to late 50's that he dropped a fraction.
James said on 3/Oct/16
Moore wore wigs in his last three Bond films. Brosnan wore a partial hairpiece in his last two Bond films.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Oct/16
There is a touch of the sardonic about James's posts, I've noticed it across the site. A bit mean spirited, but I don't think he's an obvious troll like some people commenting. Must admit though I never had Moore down as an obvious wig wearer if that is true, though in thinking about it as Bond his hair did look a little too layered and perfect to have been his own, but he has a suave style so like Pierce Brosnan you could believe that it was his own hair!
AlexMahone said on 2/Oct/16
James/Tom/Alex/whoever- During the period Roger Moore played 007,he wore a small piece to conceal a bald patch at the crown of his head. This isn't a secret with him-like Connery,Sir Roger freely acknowledges his baldness-although in his case,it's considerablly less than Sir Sean's. This isn't a wig. If you stole from your mom in your childhood an apple can this fact means that you will a bank robber as adult? Your argument is fail.

I repeat myself but If you hate Moore that's your problem my friend but Rob!!! This guy repeat always the same bullbagoogle again and again...In several topics say always that "xy guy wore lifts" and wait the reactions. Boring and stupid. I understand your opinion that all traffic is valuable but some guys aren't worth the trouble.

Editor Rob
yeah it does become a bit repetitious, but some of these stars have worn them...not everyone though, the percentage who do is far smaller than those who don't.
James said on 1/Oct/16
He wore lifts as Simon Templar and as James Bond.
Csimpson 6ft said on 1/Oct/16
187cm could be a measurement he got earlier in the day, maybe in late morning
Csimpson 6ft said on 30/Sep/16
6ft 1.25 at peak and maybe 5ft 11 flat now, from watching his bond films he didnt come across as a 6ft 1.75 guy to me
movieguy said on 4/Sep/16
I read a comment on forum where the Bond heights was being debated. This guy stated he was a 6'1'' policeman and that he had seen Roger Moore in person and that he was bigger than he was. This wasn't a young Moore either. I just think this site has got it right with 6'1.5''. I do think people should try and stick to height on this site as Rob himself has requested. It's OK to mention you think Moore wasn't ideal casting for Bond given his age or whatever but continuously posting about it is going off topic.
James said on 3/Sep/16
AlexMahone, Moore wore a wig as James Bond so why not lifts as well?
James said on 3/Sep/16
No he wasn't. He was never above 6'4.5" in the 1940s.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Sep/16
Yes, see him with Vincent Price, that's proof enough, though in a lot of films didn't quite look the full 6 ft 5.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Sep/16
No Lee was near 6ft5 for certain in the 70's
James said on 2/Sep/16
Christopher Lee was 6'4" in 1974. Therefore Moore was six foot.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Sep/16
187cm still isn't impossible for him. He could look that also on The Saint. I think he was a bit over 6ft1 though
Arch Stanton said on 31/Aug/16
Back to back with just under 6'5 Christopher Lee Moore was between 3 and 4 inches shorter, Lee at 6'4.75 and Moore at 6'1.25 is believable.
James said on 31/Aug/16
He was wearing lifts on the Grady show.
movieguy said on 31/Aug/16
I think the official height on this page is correct, just under 6'2'' prime. Saw the clip of Moore on the Paul O'Grady show and he was similar in height to the host who is 6ft plus. And this is an elderly Moore.
James said on 30/Aug/16
Moore always wore lifts and still does.
Arch Stanton said on 29/Aug/16
He was 186 IMO, looked that with Peck and Lee. I got a good look at him in some of his late 70s/early 80s films weeks back and I really think that would be right, difficult to see him same height as Coburn and Garner..

Roughly 5 or 6 years back Moore was on the Paul o Grady show and he actually looked easily 6 ft with O'Grady and Jerry Hall. I doubt he'd be just 5 ft 10 now. Has he lost more height in last few years? I've not seen him of late.
Tyler said on 25/Aug/16
He was never anywhere near 6'2".
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Aug/16
Rob, I think 186cm range late afternoon/evening is plausible but I don't think he'd really go under that. Some argue he wasn't even 6ft1. I seriously doubt that since he consistently looked at least that mark and often times over it. He probably did reach 6ft2 after a good nights sleep
Rory said on 23/Aug/16
Rob, do you think ultimately 6'1.25 would be close for Moore ? He looks shorter than guys 6'1.5-2 guys like James Garner and Caine, plus has claimed 6'1.5,6'1 and 6'2 in the morning all of which hints at 6'1.25-5. In the last Bond too with Christopher Walken he only just edged him, okay he was late fifties then and may have lost half an inch but that still puts him more in the strong 6'1 range peak.
Editor Rob
maybe the 1.5 would be a more 11am type measurement and he goes to 186 range later after lunch, assuming the truth is he could hit 6ft 2 first thing.
Tyler said on 22/Aug/16
Moore was around 6'1 but is now about 5'10. I think he was too old to play Bond, after all there are no secret agents on active service at nearly 60.
Z187 said on 12/Aug/16
@rob ... When you say his "CV lists him at ... " what do you mean?? Is there a copy of his early CV available ?!
Editor Rob
just like the spotlight resume, where height/weight/eye is listed.
AlexMahone said on 11/Aug/16
@movieguy and Rob - For me was very hard to read again and again the same crap from this Tom or James or whoever guy. I said to you Rob earlier, why you post obviously troll comments on this great site and you answered me and I accepted it but....these guys (or guy because Tom and James probably are the same) make this high level site worse.

Ok back to on topic now...Here is Sir Roger with Patrick "Dallas" Duffy. Duffy posture was always great in Dallas and nowadays isn't that bad. If Duffy 6'2" (188cm) what do you think Rob, maybe Sir Roger is closer to 5'11" than 6'ft now?

Click Here
James B said on 7/Aug/16
Surely under 6ft now rob?
Editor Rob
might be 5ft 11
movieguy said on 25/Jul/16
Rob, I think James is a troll. He's made his point about Moore being too old for Bond over and over again obviously to provoke a reaction. This is primarily a site about how tall celebrities are as opposed to whether or not they are the right age for certain roles.
Editor Rob
yeah I think the discussion should stick as much to height, I have noticed some policital diversions from tom/james, or whoever, our old friend who has been a few names on here over the decade!
James said on 24/Jul/16
Moore wore built up shoes as Bond. I don't know why they cast a TV actor who was already well into middle age.
movieguy said on 24/Jul/16
All the Bonds were similar in height 6'1'' to 6'2'' until Daniel Craig. I didn't think he was right for the part a sentiment shared with many others I guess. How he proved the doubters wrong. You don't have to be physically imposing in real life to have a big screen presence. The camera loves certain people. As for Moore it's pretty clear that his height is somewhere between 6'1'' to 6'2''.
James said on 23/Jul/16
Connery was only in his early 30s and Lazenby was younger than that.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 21/Jul/16
Early 30's is too young to play 007. Brosnan nearly got the part first at 33 and he looked like a teenager! But at 42 he looked more mature. I think an actor should start in his early 40's and finish in his late 40's.
James said on 19/Jul/16
A younger actor like Oliver Reed should have played Bond after Connery.
James said on 18/Jul/16
Connery was only 32 when he began playing Bond, and Lazenby was 30.

Moore was simply far too old for the part. He was 46 the year "Live and Let Die" was released, so he was nearly 50.
Johan said on 18/Jul/16
I always thought he was around 6ft 1 but really in some of those recent pics posted he can look a strong 6ft 1. I can see why Rob went with 187cm.
Johan said on 18/Jul/16
"About 30" So a guy who is just out of Uni, no experience as Bond? No thanks, the films portray him as being an experienced operative. So that means late 30's at least.

Contray to belief men between 40-55 aren't elderly. Its laughable really as I see many guys those ages doing my job everyday and keeping up with 18 year olds. Ofc once you get to late 50's and certainly your 60's there seems to be a drop in your energy levels. Seen many guys around 58 yrs starting to work part time because of this. Also the reason why in hard jobs you can go in pension at 58-60 unlike desk jobs thats now 67 yrs here.

And no Im not in that group, 35 years old here although noone thinks im over 28 yrs. Keep yourself healthy and fit as you start to age and you will be surprised at the outcome.

My oldest co-worker is 62 yrs old and noone thinks he is more than 50.

Moore did look good for his age when he was in his 40's and early 50's. Towards the end yes he was getting old but he still pulled it off. A Danile Craig type Bond? No he wouldn't have managed that.
Bruno said on 17/Jul/16
Best thing would be to ignore comments by James and hopefully he will stop posting.
James said on 17/Jul/16
I read online that Moore himself has admitted he was too old to play Bond.
James said on 17/Jul/16
The Bond films are guaranteed to be successful whoever plays the part, especially then when there were only two or three TV channels, no videos and no computers. No Bond film has ever lost money. They should have cast an actor who was about 30 like George Lazenby, not a man who was already well into middle age.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 16/Jul/16
I wouldn't call 45 almost 50, James. 47-48 maybe
movieguy said on 16/Jul/16
James, I think your comments are over the top and borderline offensive. Perhaps it's to provoke a reaction. As for 45 being nearly 50 that makes as much sense as 20 being nearly 30 or 30 being nearly 40. Perhaps they could have cast a spotty teenager as Bond after all 15 is nearly 35. If the public hadn't liked Moore and the films been unsuccessful the producers would have got rid of him very quickly. The Moore films made hundreds of millions as a result of what you consider the worst decision in film history. These film producers must be idiots with no business acumen according to your logic.
James said on 16/Jul/16
After all George Lazenby was only 30 in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", so I don't see why they then cast someone 15 years older.
James said on 15/Jul/16
45 is nearly 50.
Bruno said on 14/Jul/16
Moore was 44/45 when live and let die was shot not near 50
James said on 10/Jul/16
Personally I think casting a 50-year-old as Bond was the most stupid decision in film history.
James said on 9/Jul/16
That's because he wore lifts in films.
movieguy said on 8/Jul/16
Moore was a great Bond in my opinion. Times have changed and people watching the films for the first time now might not like them particularly or relate to the humour. What matters is how they were perceived at the time and the Moore films were very successful when they were released. Twenty years from now young people maybe looking at the Craig films and laughing at how awful they are. Maybe Craig's very serious approach will be considered hilarious given the underlying absurdity of the Bond movies. A lot of young people think the original Star Wars films are terrible in my experience although there is this view they are the gold standard. Plus no man could do in reality the stuff Bond does in the movies no matter how young and fit they are. The films are fantasy.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 7/Jul/16
He stacked up pretty well beside 6ft3-6ft5 range guys (Yaphett Kotto, Curt Jurgens, Kabir Bedi, Christopher Lee, Julius Harris)
James said on 3/Jul/16
The humour was due to the writing, not Moore himself. The series had already turned to camp with Connery in "Diamonds Are Forever".
James B said on 2/Jul/16
Yeah I am not a huge fan of Moore as James Bond either. I think a lot of people and (myself including) agree that Connery was the best bond.

Credit to Moore though he is much more tolerable as bond than Daniel Craig is.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Jun/16
That's a bit harsh, James. I loved the humour he brought. But he may have outstayed his welcome after Moonraker. I think the unwritten rule should be that the actor is in his early 40's when he starts and late 40's when he finishes (like Brosnan). Moore looked great at the start but not so much at the end.
James said on 28/May/16
I could never watch any of Moore's Bond movies because he was already far too old when he started.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/May/16
I have Moore at 186-187cm and Connery at 188-189cm in their primes...
James said on 23/May/16
Moore was 57 in his last Bond film so he could have lost a bit of height by then. I don't understand why they replaced Connery with an actor who was several years older than him.
jtm said on 21/May/16
maybe 6'1 in the morning if he was lucky.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/May/16
I doubt Moore lost anything noticeable in the early 80's
James B said on 18/May/16
I think Moore probably lost a bit of height quite early.
Arch Stanton said on 17/May/16
@Rob, did you see the James Garner photo? I thought Garner edged him out. Another one Click Here I can't see both Garner and Moore at 6'1.5. Garner looked taller onscreen to me.
Editor Rob
it can depend at what stage Moore lost a bit of height, and what footwear they have.
Anonymous1 said on 12/Apr/16
6'1-ish I think is safe. It can mean 6'2 out of bed or in shoes, and covers anything in between. I liked Moore as Bond, though I think a push-up or two may have helped his believability. As stated earlier, I have no problem with Connery playing Bond at 52, or Moore as Bond in his 50's. People don't just dry up and become Walmart greeters at 50. However, it might have made more sense if, at those ages, either man as Bond had found themselves in situations that sort of landed in their laps and they had to deal with them, as opposed to being active secret service agents.
James said on 12/Apr/16
Moore said he wore a partial hairpiece to cover his bald spot in all his Bond films. Remember he was already nearly fifty when he started.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Apr/16
I would hardly call 6ft2 a joke for Moore. He could look that at times
Rory said on 10/Apr/16
When you think about it..Moore was 57/58 in View to a Kill..meanwhile Connery at that age was acting as an old wise curmudgeon in The the idea of Connery say playing Bond at that age would be comical 20 yrs after hed first vacated the role. Even when he played it in Never say never again aged 53 it was played part spoof...Moore played the role for real when he was even older lol in VTAKill. Definitely should have gone after Moonraker or latest For your eyes only.
Rory said on 10/Apr/16
I think Timothy Dalton was the most believable James Bond character, that's not to say I enjoyed watching his films or portrayal the most though. Moore was a well suited actor to playing a suave womanizing posh Englishman which was part of the character but utterly unconvincing as a killer/combater..he shouldn't have continued into the '80s..well past it by View to a kill where the idea of him killing bad guys had become even more absurd. Solid 186 at night peak, nearer 185 at night by VTAKill.
movieguy said on 10/Apr/16
Some Moore knockers on this site. He was a very good Bond I believe and the films did well. He admits himself that the way he played the part wouldn't work for the younger generation today but at the time he was the right man for the job. Don't believe he was much if any under 6'2'' and the only film where he really looked too old for the role was the last one. At the end of the day the films are fantasy and Moore always seemed ready to let the audience in on the joke. I don't think the Craig or Connery films are any less preposterous than the Moore films although they may play the part in a more intense fashion.
Z187 said on 8/Apr/16
Sean was the one that wore the hairpiece ... And yes his shoes had heals but that was the fashion then...
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/Apr/16
He may have worn lifts in scenes with big guys like Richard Kiel, Curd Jurgens or Yaphett Kotto
movieguy said on 8/Apr/16
Christopher Lee towers over Moore when they stand back to back but maybe ground is not flat. Someone has posted on Youtube a clip of a 1960s Variety Show event with various stars. Roger Moore stands next to Clint Walker and English heavyweight boxer Billy Walker. Roger is taller than Billy but shorter than Clint. He is not dwarfed by 6'6'' Clint Walker though. Moore looks a few inches shorter but not by a great extent. People doubt Moore's height as being 6'2'' but I think it is probably correct.
James said on 7/Apr/16
It's possible he wore lifts in the Bond films. He also wore a partial hairpiece in his seven movies. As others have said, I don't know why they cast someone who was already nearly 50.
James B said on 30/Mar/16
Rob maybe Michael Jackson is under 5'9?
Editor Rob
it's been argued a lot he could have looked sub 5ft 9 at times, although I'm happy enough giving him the 5ft 9
Tom said on 27/Mar/16
Moore wore lifts in "A View to a Kill".
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Mar/16
I think he did clear 6ft1 with ease in the 60's-70's.

Out of bed: 188-189cm
Before bed: 186-187cm

By the last Bond film he looked more 6ft1 flat
Arch Stanton said on 23/Mar/16
186 is definitely arguable, I doubt he'd have been 6'1 flat or lower though. With Peck he looked 186 to me. And that also adds up with Christopher Lee. I think I saw him The Last Time I Saw Paris from about 1954 though where he could easily look 187 in a few scenes with Van Johnson, so if you go with peak height in his 20s, 187 is OK.
Editor Rob said on 23/Mar/16
He could look a good 4 inches (maybe tad more) than Michael Jackson:
Click Here
James said on 22/Mar/16
6'1" would be most accurate for Moore's peak height.
Tom said on 21/Mar/16
Niven was only 5'11".
Tom said on 20/Mar/16
Moore was obviously wearing lifts there because in 1983 photographs he was two inches shorter than Caine and Connery.

Dalton was also a bit too old by the time he was finally cast as Bond, but he was much better in the part and a much better actor than the elderly Moore ever was.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Mar/16
@ Rob, it's worth checking out The Sea Wolves if you have time to see how he looks with a 63 year old Peck
Click Here Interesting photo, Niven look tall there!! . He had the tendency to wear lifts when in films with taller men like Peck and Heston though. Sending a link by email.
Editor Rob
the ground looks a bit dodgy there, like he's standing on a wee mound
Arch Stanton said on 19/Mar/16
Mmm, if you watch The Sea Wolves he was only about 50 at the time, shot in 1979. Doubt he'd have lost height. He looks a good two inches shorter than 190-1cm Gregory Peck, who was about 63 at the time. Now we know Peck lost height later on as he was looking 6'1 a lot. But really 187 looks too high, he really looks about 185cm with Peck.
James said on 19/Mar/16
Connery was 31 and Lazenby was 29 so there's no reason Dalton couldn't have played Bond in the 1970s.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Mar/16
@Tom, with David Niven and Gregory Peck Click Here Niven wasn't far off six foot himself. You can't honest think he's barely taller.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Mar/16
No he was actually quite close to Caine, Connery and Kline at the Oscars in 1988. I reckon atpeak, Roger Moore would have been close to Caine and roughly 1in shorter than Connery
AlexMahone said on 18/Mar/16
Again no arguments. Timothy Dalton has the chance to be a good Bond in the late '80s. He wasn't the good choice from Broccoli. Look at the Oscar ceremony in 1989 when Connery and Caine stand face to face and than came Moore and he was joking a lot...Moore was the same height at age 61-62 as Connery. 2 inches shorter? Please, see more movies.
Rory said on 18/Mar/16
He definitely wasn't 2 inches shorter than Caine and Connery..about three quarters of an inch shorter than Connery and half an inch shorter than Caine..6'1.25 peak, possibly 6'1.5 on a good day.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 17/Mar/16
Dalton would have been too young in the 70's. The part is tailored for a guy in his late 30's/early 40's. Moore was approaching the sell-by-date when he got cast but still managed to pull it off. I think Dalton should have taken over from Roger in 1981 and gone right up to 1989.
Tom said on 17/Mar/16
Moore was only six foot. He was two inches shorter than Sean Connery and Michael Caine.
Tom said on 16/Mar/16
And I never said I hated Moore, I just felt a younger actor like Timothy Dalton should have been cast in 1973.
Tom said on 16/Mar/16
I've never heard of Terry Thomas or Robert Hutton. How do you know how tall they were?

Nowadays an actor that old would never be cast as Bond.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/Mar/16
Rob, which one of these is most likely his peak?

A) 189cm/187cm
B) 188.5cm/186.5cm
C) 188cm/186cm
D) 187.5cm/185.5cm
E) 187cm/185cm
Editor Rob
probably C is likely
James B said on 13/Mar/16
186cm is best shout
AlexMahone said on 11/Mar/16
Tom, you hate Moore but who cares? He was a TV star and grown up for a movie star in the '70s. Nobodys care if you hate Moore. Moore was 6'1.5" taller than Terry Thomas In the Persuaders. Almost the same height than Robert Hutton int one episode of the persuaders. Hutton was 6'2" (188cm) and Moore was the same.
Tom said on 7/Mar/16
Moore was 6'1". He looked 45 in "Live and Let Die". He wasn't a star in movies so I don't know why he was cast as Bond, especially when he was already well into middle age.
movieguy said on 6/Mar/16
I think Moore was young looking for his age at the time he was cast as Bond hence him getting the role. Admittedly by the time of the later films he did look a little too old for the part but the movies were still fun. Doesn't look that big on screen but get the feeling he was a pretty big guy in real life, when you see him next to tall actors he isn't usually dwarfed but stacks up well. Struck me as guy who could laugh at himself and although a big star didn't develop a huge ego. This comes across in the tongue in cheek nature of the Bond films he made. I realise some prefer the more serious films but I actually appreciate Moore in the role more these days than when I was younger. John Glen the director said when Roger was on set it was a pleasure to come into work as he was such a great guy.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Mar/16
Moore could hit near 6ft3 in some shoes.
Z187 said on 23/Jan/16
Brett Sinclairs passport actually states his height at 6ft 3in, perhaps that's his in shoe height
Tom said on 20/Jan/16
I just don't understand why Moore was cast as Bond when he was already nearly 50. If he had started with "You Only Live Twice" (when Connery didn't want to do the film) it might have been different.
184.3cm (Night) said on 19/Jan/16
He was playing the character of Bond so for me its a Bond movie regardless. I still don't think moore looked bad, if you compare him to some of the big stars nowadays he looked far better at that age.
Tom said on 19/Jan/16
Connery had lost interest by "You Only Live Twice" and he would have ruined "On Her Majesty's Secret Service".
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Jan/16
Moore outstayed his welcome after Moonraker for sure. They probably should have gone with Dalton to start off with For Your Eyes Only. If they were smart, it should have switched hands each decade. Connery should have gone right up to Her Majesty's Secret Service and THEN retired. Moore subsequently should have been given Diamonds Are Forever.
184.3cm (Night) said on 17/Jan/16
Die another Day was in 2002, Brosnan was born in 1953. So yes he stopped before his 50th birthday.

Never say Never again was in 1983, Connery was 53 yrs old then. He was born in 1930.

Moore stopped when he was 58, still didnt look bad for his age though. He was only 46 in Live and let die though, i still think thats a decent age for Bond.

In my opinion anything between 35-50 is good for Bond. He is supposed to be an experienced operative not some hairless youngster out the academy.
Tom said on 15/Jan/16
Brosnan was still in his 40s in his last Bond film, and Connery was only 40 in his last Bond film. Moore was already too old in "Live and Let Die".
Tom said on 15/Jan/16
Moore was skinny like Brosnan.
Tom said on 14/Jan/16
It's quite obvious when he was wearing a short-sleeve shirt in "For Your Eyes Only" that he was nowhere near 200 lbs.

I've no idea why a 55-year-old was playing Bond when the character is supposed to be in his thirties in every film.
184.3cm (Night) said on 14/Jan/16
Around 6'1 at his peak maybe a fraction less. I would have guessed him at 170 pounds max when he was younger certainly nowhere near 200 pounds.

40's isnt that bad for Bond.

Brosnan was far older when he was done and Connery was 40's when he starred in Diamonds are Forever.

Daniel Craig is also 40's.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Jan/16
Moore was tall and slim like Brosnan or Dalton. I reckon 185lbs early on and closer to 200lbs in the later Bond movies. Connery, Lazenby and Craig are larger framed guys.
Tom said on 13/Jan/16
His actual weight in 1972 was about 160 lbs.
Tom said on 13/Jan/16
Moore was always of slight build and not believable as a tough secret agent. It's hilarious to suggest he was ever 210 lbs!
OddMan said on 11/Jan/16
"Moore was not a big guy. At six foot he only weighed eleven and a half stone."

Garbage. He was over 210lbs before he became Bond and then slimmed down to 180lbs for the role. He's barrel-chested.
Tom said on 10/Jan/16
Does anyone know why Moore was cast as James Bond when he was already well into middle-age?
Tom said on 10/Jan/16
Camera angles and small sets were used to make Moore and Curtis look taller in "The Persuaders".
Z188 said on 9/Jan/16
watching him in episode 7 of the persuaders, walking around barefoot he's clearly at least 6'1 without shoes...
Tom said on 8/Jan/16
Moore was not a big guy. At six foot he only weighed eleven and a half stone.

Frankly I'm surprised he was cast as James Bond considering he was already 45. That wouldn't happen today.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Jan/16
You sure about that one, Arch?

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
OddMan said on 3/Jan/16
186-187 during the day as a young man, no doubt. Also quite large-framed, albeit not muscular and trained by any means.

You have to take into account that the villains in his Bond movies were awfully big - Jaws (7'+), Curt Jürgens (6'4''), almost all of the black guys in "Live and Let Die" (6'4''+), Christopher Lee (6'4+) and the Drax guy was also 6'1'', when he faced Christopher Walken (6') he probably had shrunk quite a bit already (and lost skeletal frame), so, I cannot blame people for getting the impression that he was not a big guy but they are wrong.
Tom said on 3/Jan/16
Moore and Burton both wore lifts in "The Wild Geese".
Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/16
He actually looks the full 6'2 in some scenes with Richard Harris.
Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/16
In the Wild Geese actually he looks nothing less than 187 with Richard Burton and Richard Harris.
RisingForce said on 20/Dec/15
Interesting that he claimed 6'1.5" in Mario's video. It's consistent with his 6'2" morning claim. Maybe splitting hairs, but he usually gives more of a 6'1" 185-186 cm impression to me. He's probably closer to 5'10" today at 88.
littlesue said on 8/Dec/15
He lost quite a few inches which for his age is fairly reasonable
Kenny said on 7/Dec/15
I'd say 5'9-5'9.25 today

Moore with Daniel Craig: Click Here
Mario said on 1/Dec/15
Click Here

Roger Moore describes himself as 6 ft 1.5 in this video at 1:31
Tom said on 20/Nov/15
Roger Moore wore a wig in "A View to a Kill" so he was likely to have worn lifts as well.
Larry said on 15/Nov/15
Christopher Lee was 6'4" in "The Man with the Golden Gun", so Moore was six foot or 6'0.5".

Moore was two inches shorter than Michael Caine and Sean Connery irl, so he was never 6'1".

He probably wore built up shoes for movies.
Anonymous1 said on 13/Nov/15
...Just food for thought; I've read many accounts that Burt Reynolds wore 2inch lifts...with 2 inch heeled boots, giving him 4 extra inches. I read this from his own costumer, or whatever the guy's position was. I saw Burt in person, and his boots tell the tale. They look so tiny because he's pretty much on his tip toes, already, in them, due to lifts. One look at the back of his boots...where the curve of a heel would be, shows it all. It's extended looking, and very obvious lifts are inside. So, him being taller than Moore in Cannonball Run really isn't indicative of anyone's height. I say Moore was 6'1, probably 5'11, now. I'm 50, and have lost no height.
Jug said on 12/Nov/15
In "The Man With The Golden Gun" Moore looked every bit of four inches shorter than Christopher Lee. All in all, I really doubt that Moore was less than 6'1 at his peak. There is plenty of film and photo evidence to prove that he was in this range. In the Bond films, Moore appears to be as tall as Connery was with the same actors (M, Q, Moneypenny). I think 6'1.5 is a slight stretch though.
charlie said on 11/Nov/15
Roger Moore is no way even close to 6 1 and a half. He was 55 years of age when he did the cannonball run with Burt Reynolds,Dean Martin can see Burt Reynolds and Roger Moore standing side by side at the end Moore standing a good 3 inches shorter than Burt Reynolds who is 5 foot 11 inches. But same height as Dean Martin who was never really that tall in the first place. Now I know people are supposed to shrink a quarter of an inch after 30 for every decade after and in that case Roger Moore would have shrunk to 5 feet.. Actors ie about their height all the time. the taller the male actor the more masculine he feels..Its a guy thing to make yourself taller than your true height. Roger Moore could easily be 5 foot 7 in height now
charlie said on 11/Nov/15
Roger Moore is no way even close to 6 1 and a half. He was 55 years of age when he did the cannonball run with Burt Reynolds,Dean Martin can see Burt Reynolds and Roger Moore standing side by side at the end Moore standing a good 3 inches shorter than Burt Reynolds who is 5 foot 11 inches. But same height as Dean Martin who was never really that tall in the first place. Now I know people are supposed to shrink a quarter of an inch after 30 for every decade after and in that case Roger Moore would have shrunk to 5 feet.. Actors ie about their height all the time. the taller the male actor the more masculine he feels..Its a guy thing to make yourself taller than your true height.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Nov/15
@MR-KILLER-SHRIMP: Patrick Bachau is/was a strong 6ft3
Mr-KILLER-SHRIMP said on 8/Nov/15
182cm in "A View To A Kill", at least 2 inches shorter than Patrick Bauchau. Moore was a great Bond actor.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Nov/15
He was 6ft1 range till the late 80's at least. Stood eye-to-eye w/h Caine, Connery and Kline at the Oscars in '88.
Possibly nearer 6ft2 in the 60's-70's.
Rory said on 25/Oct/15
6'1.25 at his lowest which was strong tall for his generation, comparable to 6'3 by todays standards.
Larry said on 18/Oct/15
Moore was close to 6'1" as a young man, but he was only six foot by 1983, which is why he looked 2 inches shorter than Sean Connery and Michael Caine in a photograph. He probably had special shoes in movies.
Mike said on 17/Oct/15
Peak: 6ft 1-1.5in (185-187 cm)
Today: 5ft 11-11.5in (180-182 cm)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Sep/15
186-187cm peak.

I can believe he hit 6ft2 out of bed.
Z187 said on 11/Sep/15
I agree dave
dave said on 30/Aug/15
roger moore was 6ft 1.25(186) in his prime. he was slightly shorter than sean connery who was 6ft 1/5(187)
movieyguy said on 30/Aug/15
Does look shorter than Michael Caine in clip posted below. Maybe 6'1'' prime dropped to 6ft and below in later life.
somerandomguy said on 8/Aug/15
On second thought, I doubt he was any less than six one.
me said on 26/Jul/15
he looks no taller than 6 ft on the saint. he just didn't look that tall in that show. he looks taller as james bond. footwear?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Jul/15
Moore looked near 6ft2 in The Saint
Mario said on 7/Jul/15
Roger Moore and Michael Caine, side by side:
Click Here
Y2A said on 2/Jul/15
Connery 186cm peak? Are you 'avin a giggle?
JJF said on 16/Jun/15
@Rampage - in the 1950's... most likely not very accurate and porbably whilst wearing shoes. They didn't bother too much with correct barefoot measurements back then.

I never saw Moore look anything over 1.85m next to Connery or Michael Caine who were the same height in the 70's, and neither has anyone else...

Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.

Other vital statistics like weight or shoe size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.

Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.