How tall was Roger Moore - Page 4

Add a Comment1148 comments

Average Guess (167 Votes)
6ft 1.15in (185.8cm)
deano said on 24/Oct/08
now ordinary people in real life are more taller than all celebritys put together you just dont see them everyday.
deano said on 24/Oct/08
instead of making them have huge upper bodys and huge legs and huge heads to be 6ft2 you can make them something appropriate and resonable and true to the actuall height to something like 5ft or to be fair to you guys 5 ft 11.I hope you understand what I mean.
deano said on 24/Oct/08
and remmeber he does where lifts so that may help him look taller, but thats it. Now I think you could say they lie but theres always a reason for it so that clears that,and I can tell you hughhhhhh, that I werent born yesterday I have seen lots of roger moore things like movies james bond,like documentarys like the ones that are shown on tv to showcase james bond,programs like 'the saint and trust me I was very sure of rogers height after seeing him in the saint now thats where he hardly ever worn lifts, and he looked small, well what Im saying is smaller than 6 ft 2 let alone 6ft 1 1/2, by say an even 3 inches or how I estimated as 3 and 1/2inches .
deano said on 24/Oct/08
okay now considering the truth this is how i've put the bonds heights after taking away 3 and 1/2 inches off the listed heights which come to as more of a realistic height, here they are:
sean connery - is a shade under 5ft 11
george lazenby - is somewhere around 5 ft 10 1/2 and 5 ft 11 but seeing as he's been listed as 6ft 2 1/2 i'd put him same as sean connery, but because I got a real estmate of connerys height as 6 ft 2.4 something i took 3 inch away, and got his as a definate a shade under 5 ft 11.but not sure about lazenby so i'd just give him a shade under 5 ft 11 aswell
roger moore - 5 ft 10 who later turned 5 ft 9 1/2 and is definatly much shorter as seen on jonathan ross show, hes 5 ft 8 or could most likly to be a little bit he looked alot shorter than jonathan ross by 3 inches or a little more, who is listed 6ft 1 but on my ratio 5ft10, as what roger used to be but has shrunk alot.or you never know might have always been that height(that height from jonathan ross show).
timothy dalton - 5 ft 10 1/2
pierce brosnan - 5 ft 9 1/2
daniel craig - 5 ft 6 1/2.
Hugh said on 24/Oct/08
deano, you were born yesterday. Roger 5ft11 peak and 5ft8 now. Sean Connery Connery 6ft peak, Timothy Dalton 5ft11.5! LOL!. Rob, get this joker off the site. We don't need lunacy
deano said on 23/Oct/08
and one other thing with famous heights theres usually inches added on rather then taken off.As we can clearly see with people like certainly like roger moore and richard kiel.Now I kinda repeated my self there with roger moores height just to remind you not put silly unreal height gestures on like 6ft 2 to for roger moore lol.This guy never looks tall nxt to anyone in films unless of course it was someone really small.cause c'mon if were to be 6 ft 2 that would make everyone in the film 'the spy who loved me' during the first scene where m, bond and other people in the secret agency are disscussing things, are 6 ft 4 and 6 ft 5 etc ,they are not that see what i mean though, and even they dont look 6 ft 3, maybe make the 6 ft mark but thats it.From my prospective Im looking at the true side of things with famous peoples heights, obviously the people who list them as taller baically are trying to make them bigger because their like icon or something.
deano said on 23/Oct/08
okay not everyones height is fake, say someone like steve mcfadden who plays phil on eastenders, is the height he is listed at of 5 ft 8 I mean because I belive in the fakeness of famouse peoples heights i'd even say steve even had a couple of inches added on him.
deano said on 23/Oct/08
please, roger is no way 6ft 2 one of my relatives is 6 ft 2 or was because hes probably taller now, who looked huge and tall but im afraid roger wears high heels and not even that would make him 6 ft 2! oh my god!.
deano said on 23/Oct/08
okay now people lets get to it these people are not the height they say they are,at heights of 6 ft or even 6 ft 1, now look at the that, but then they say hes 6 ft 1 1/2, roger is probably 5 ft 10 1/2 at his tallest, now thats realistic, I mean with his heels on he'd be 6ft 1/2 at best the only bond who looked tall was actually sean connery who who could of been 6ft then suddenly shrinked, which showed in the later 80's I think at an award show, where they were next to each other, (sir roger and sir sean). which then made roger look tall doesent matter how high heels he was wearing and I know that he wears high ones, and those kind of high heels are about 1 and 1/2 inches or 2 inches I would say.And c'mon timothy dalton, okay he looks taller than roger whos as i said is 5ft 10 1/2 at best so that would make timothy 5 ft 11 1/2 now that is reasonable, I cant say that these people are the height they claim to be just by looking at them and no they do not have massive heads or something, you can easily tell how tall people are when you see them, or have a rough guess of their height, cause people who are tall people do look tall, and people who are medium built are medium built and people who look small etc.My personal opinion of bonds heights and in general any famous persons height to be fake, in the way that they are smaller than the height they say they are.And now I think everyone can say that roger has lost about 2, 2 1/2 inches as he looks smaller than jonathan ross by i'd say 3 whole inches when on the jonathan ross show who is listed as 6ft 1 1/2 so he is rogers former height of which he was also listed at 6 ft 1 1/2, so that would make roger now 5 ft 8 or 5ft 8 and 1/2 I would say.Realistically now c'mon, maybe rogers height could of been at 5ft 11 but that my friends would be at best, and I mean no taller not even a shade.
Paul said on 22/Oct/08
I think Roger Moore is 184 today and 186 peak height. I don't think he has lost that much.
Leo said on 21/Oct/08
He looked like as he suggested, 6ft 2 in the morning - then averaged out at 6ft1.25 I'd say. Rob, what height was David Niven?
Paul said on 21/Oct/08
Roger Moore had at least 2 inches on Paul O'Grady so Rob doesn't always get it right.
Hugh said on 21/Oct/08
Lenad how tall are you? 188.5cm is 6ft2.25 isn't it. I measure at bang on 191cm in the morning. I'm down to about 189-190cm at night.
Elf said on 21/Oct/08
Carrying on from my "anon" comment below. I'd hazard a guess that these days that the height here is accurate and he is six foot barefoot and 6'1 with shoes. He was definately 1.5 inches taller than Jerry Hall in small heels. If Jerry Hall is 5 ft 11 not the 6 ft she often claims to be then it would make sense in comparison. One things for certain he is absolutely not 5ft 10, he has looked too tall for too long to be nearer average. Jonathan Ross's height strangely seems to fluctuate. He claims 6'2 yet was clearly smaller than Jay Z who he stated to Jay Z "Your're a big fella. you must be 6'2" yet compared to other tall guests looks around 6'2. I thought Moore looked two inches shorter not three or four inches as below which is also odd in that Moore looked the same height as O'Grady who is apparently the same height as Ross. Jonathan Ross's exact height is very difficult to guess, I wouldn't be surprised given his obsession with it that he has soles in those shoes of his which give him an extra inch or two.
Lenad said on 20/Oct/08
I can believe he was a full 6'2 in the morning. My dad measures at 190.1cm in the morning and at evening he measures at 188.5cm. So asuming Moore was 188.5cm out of bed, in the evening he measured at 186.8cm.
GUK said on 18/Oct/08
I think he was, he is over 80 now though.
Hugh said on 17/Oct/08
Ross is an idiot. He is Obsessed With Height. He's 6ft0.5-6ft1 tops. Lenad, I'm not sure if Roger is quite 6ft1 nowadays, 5ft11 is too low though. I think Moore is a little over 6ft nowadays. I'd say 6ft2 at his peak. Note he's a lot heavier these days which may give the illusion he's shorter. He looked a mess on the Paul O'Grady show.
Anonymous said on 17/Oct/08
Roger Moore was on Paul o Grady earlier and was noticeably taller than Jerry Hall who is listed at 6 ft and she had smallish heels on. Look the same height as Paul o Grady who is 6 ft 2 by details I;ve seen. I still think he looks 6 ft 1.5 inches.
Lenad said on 16/Oct/08
5'11 is a joke. The guy is at least 6'1.
GUK said on 13/Oct/08
He looked 5ft 10 max to Jonathan Ross. But Ross wears big shoes, and Moore had normal dress shoes. Ross is smaller than 6ft 1 Tim Henman in tennis shoes. So possibly 5ft 11 now for Roger.
beatlefan said on 13/Oct/08
He did not look 3 inches shorter than Jonathan Ross on that show. He looked the same height. As I said earlier on the thread I have seen him in London and he is still six feet tall.
bananaman said on 13/Oct/08
He looked 3 inches shorter than Jonathan Ross ,where he appeared as a guest last week.Moore was 185cm (@ best when playing Bond.)Ross is 187 cm.Moore was and still is very trim which makes him look taller.
Hugh said on 12/Oct/08
I think they did something with the camera angles in the Last Crusade and For your eyes only. If Yaphet Kotto was 6ft5, which I doubt Roger Moore is 6ft4 lol. I met Connery and Glover in Person and Connery appeared closer to my height which is 6ft2.75.
adam said on 9/Oct/08
Anonymous was me. I apologize, my computer is dumb.
Anonymous said on 9/Oct/08
Close 6-2. 6-1
deano said on 5/Oct/08
i'd say roger's height is 6 ft and 3/4 of an inch or a shade under 6 ft 1 because in a photo standing next to pierce brosnan who is 6 ft 1 looked just shade smaller maybe it was brosnans hair which was bigger than rogers, but they both looked the same height.So roger could well be 6 ft but no taller.
Hmmm said on 4/Oct/08
he probably looks shorter than he is, because people have terrible posture at his age. my dad is 181cm (184cm peak, I measured him for a visa application) but looks 177cm these days. hes about 65.
nicole said on 3/Oct/08
Lenad,every person has his opinion and his impression when you meet someone or see the films and the pictures about the actors.For me after that i have seen all the bond films again with Roger and the pictures and the opinion of Christian who saw Roger in Gstaad 1995 about 6ft1inch then peak height is realistic near 6ft2inch.
Hugh said on 2/Oct/08
Lenad I'm not fooling anyone because I'm telling the truth.
Lenad said on 28/Sep/08
I think 186cm for peak suits him better and Hugh once again stop making lies of meeting celebrites. Cut it out your not fooling anyone.
Ray said on 19/Sep/08
I don't believe Moore was anything close to 6'2". I'd say in his youth he was a 184/5 cm guy or about 6'0.5". These days considering he's in his '80s, he's about 5'11 or so. He did an advert with Beckham and Williams for UNicef and they were barefoot and he had chunky boots on. Becks and Williams are 5'11" or maybe slightly under and Moore was about the same do the math.
nicole said on 18/Sep/08
It`s also my opinion Roger was in his youth in the 187cm - 188cm.And the second point is that Roger doesn`t seem a person who claims a wrong height for himself.
Hugh said on 16/Sep/08
For your eyes only was on the other hight and he did look roughly the same height as julian Glover who is a solid 6ft2. He was definately around 6ft2 at his peak. Most likely. He claims that height anyway. Also he does have the dimensions of a 6ft2 guy. Long legs, broad shoulders.
Hugh said on 16/Sep/08
He would definately not rule out 6ft2 for this guy peakwise. I met him in London a few years back with my bro. He has certainly lost some height. I's say 6ft or just over nowadays. Still reasonably tall guy.
Lenad said on 16/Sep/08
I always estimated at least a solid 6'1 for this guy. Roger Moore was definitly above average because he was taller than most other men his James Bond movies.
Mr. R said on 6/Aug/08
I saw him years ago in New York, and he was much taller than I expected. He was close to 6-2 in his prime.
beatlefan said on 28/Jul/08
I've seen Roger in Charing Cross, London and he certainly wasn't 6'4". He wasn't that close to me but still around the six foot mark I'd say.
rob roy said on 28/Jul/08
i think roger moore is more than 6'1! he's probably 6'4". he really tall and good looking jimbo. but sadly to note however that he does not have any movie for a long time. what to him no one knows. unlike sean connery who is still active.
Scott B. said on 15/Jul/08
Roger Moore had at least 4 inches on 5'9 VanDamm. 6'1 for Moore.
Phil said on 27/Jun/08
Roger Moore was indeed 6feet2 in the morning
talker said on 25/Jun/08
after watching more of his early stuff i dont think Moore was ever 6'1.5"(1.87).And i am suspicious of too much shrinking except in special cases.I believe Moore was 1.85 in his youth and lost propably 2cm which is possible,4cm sounds too much to me,Moore looks like he kept himself in good shape,he wouldnt lose that much height.
Birnam said on 25/May/08
6'1 was the peak for Moore, today he's lucky if he's a plain 6'.
Brosnan is somewhere between 6'0.5" and 6'1.25" roughly speaking.
Scott B said on 24/May/08
Moore and Brosnan are the same height. 6'1 Barefoot.
Viper said on 22/May/08
This is the tallest Ive ever seen Moore look. Click Here
Birnam said on 19/May/08
Nicole, that could be barely possible.
There are well known pics showing Dalton, Moore and Brosnan together.
Dalton is about two inches taller than the other ones, wich are more or less in the same height range, BTW the picture is dated in the 90's when your "Christian" is belived to meet Moore. A 6'2" Moore would have made a near 6'4" Dalton, but we now the later is not over that very figure: 6'2" , or scrapping it. Think about it.
nicole said on 16/May/08
Hugh could be right. In 1995 january was a friend of mine Christian with his familiy like every year in winter in Gstaad.Then in a restaurant Christian saw Roger Moore going out of the restaurant and Christian came in. Christian is 5ft10.5 inch (barfooted) and 6ft with shoes and said to me Roger was two inches taller than him.
Agust said on 16/May/08
Moore was an England "superstar" in The Persuaders (1971). And he was only Roger Moore in "The Saint" (1968 more or less). He could be able to select his co-stars in "The Persuaders".
Hugh said on 14/May/08
I think Moore was 6ft2 at his peak and is now scraping 6ft1.

Editor Rob
Moore is one of the few actors who has specifically stated his height in the morning.
Mard said on 6/May/08
Yeah Burger man, that's the point.
He's an actor and his impeccable posture gave him the role, that and his carisma, his acting skills, let's get back to the topic.
Yeah, he was Bond regarding he had the looks, hedonistic behaviour...but also pretending it. Is job as living mannequin helped to overcome the taller and muscular precedent on Connery.
Gonzalo said on 6/May/08
Well, he looks taller than 1`83 to me. Not sure about 1`88, that sounds too much for me. However, it is true as Tubbs points that he looked very similar in height to Elliot Golud, who is clearly a 1`90 guy. Moore was also 5 cms taller than Glenn Ford, listed here 1
Mard said on 5/May/08
Well Gonzalo, it's not what it sounds to you but what is feasible.
His slender figure made him appear taller than he really is. Comparing him to other actors he's never under the 6' mark, possibly more, but never in hell 6'2" or close. So for me he was 6'1" at his heyday.
Gonzalo said on 5/May/08
Roger moore could have been 1`86 in his youth. He looked tall. To put him around 1`83 sounds like a joke to me
Scott B said on 24/Apr/08
Christopher Lee was 6'5 Moore is 6'1.
Ed T. said on 19/Apr/08
There seems to be alot of evidence on this site ( picture with Christopher Lee; couple of pictures with Gregory Peck , group picture with Peck, David Niven, etc. ) that would indicate that Moore was closer to 6 foot even, than he was to 6 '1". This would support my opinion that Lee Marvin was closer to 6'1" than he was to 6'2" , or maybe between 6'1" and 6'2". In a clip I saw from Shout at the Devil, I don't see Marvin looking more than one inch taller than Moore and more likely just a half inch taller.
Anonymous said on 19/Apr/08
When he stood back to back with Christopher Lee 6'4'', Moore looked @ least 4 inches shorter.6 foot even @ his peak seems right.
guk said on 11/Apr/08
I had a James Bond Annual in the 1970s (Moonraker I think) in the bio, Roger Moore is listed as between 6ft and 6ft 1, of course that could have been made up
Hugh said on 11/Apr/08
I still think 6ft2 is possible.
Ray said on 8/Apr/08
I don't believe Moore was 6'1.5" back in the day. With shoes on I'd say he hit that height. Just over 6' during the Saint and early bonds and then probably dropped a cm. He got totally owned by Lee in TMWTGG. I know he was 6'4" - 6'5" but at 6'1.5" barefoot for Moore the diff wouldn't have been that great.
talker said on 7/Apr/08
i just got the early Saint episodes DVD,in one of the first ones Roger looks much shorter than i thought.He is clearly shorter than actor Anthony Dawson who plays professor Dent in dr.No.Dawson looks shorter than Connery in that movie.
There are some other actors in same episode who are ALL taller than Moore.He looks to barely reach 6'in this,its really strange.
Hugh said on 29/Mar/08
Every Bond except Daniel Craig has been listed at 6ft2.
Hugh said on 28/Mar/08
6ft2 neighbourhood during his bond days now 6ft1 or a hair shorter.
Maden said on 20/Mar/08
The guy was a solid 6'1" when young and 6' now, he looked a lot of taller thanks to his lanky figure. Forget everything over that.
Hugh said on 20/Mar/08
Roger Moores peak height was 6ft2. These days I think hes still standing reasonably tall at just over 6ft.
Marcelo C. said on 18/Mar/08
Roger George Moore used to be one of the most elegant and well proportioned men I
tubbs said on 29/Feb/08
I saw Escape to Athena today, and he still looked 6'2" opposite David Niven, Telly Savalas, he looked the same as Richard Roundtree, who was near 6'3" in the late 70's, and there was minimal difference between himself and 6'3" Elliott Gould. He still has great posture, and always looks like he's managed to lose very little height, even at 80 he still looks to be touching the 6'1" mark.
talker said on 27/Feb/08
a cousin of mine used to see Moore all the time in the late 70's at Swiss luxury ski resort Gstaad,and he told me he was then 1.87m like the peak height in the listing says.Thats what he looks in the Saint series.When in the 80's he played Bond he may have lost half inch.
Ivan 6'2.25 said on 6/Feb/08
6'1.5 seems right in his early days,in james bond the tailor measure him exactly 6'1.25 186 cms in the mid 70s quite tall too.
l1m3hous3 said on 5/Jan/08
I can't agree.
By his last Bond, Roger was a plain 6'.
Click Here
Anonymous said on 4/Jan/08
Checkout roger in the Persuaders, he looks a comfortable 6'2", seriously, recently on Paul O Grady he looked the same as him, O'Grady is a genuine 6'2". He still looks around the 6'1" mark, upgrade required. Just because he is 80, it doesn't mean he's lost a lot of height.
l1m3hous3 said on 2/Jan/08
He was 6'1" on his bond films, nowadays on the 6' neighbourhood.
He really never shrunk a big chunk, always maintained an excellent posture.
Minstrel Man said on 31/Dec/07
He looked at least 6'1" in the Bond movies, perhaps 6'1.5" in the morning.

Peak height was probably 6'1.5". Nowadays he looks about an inch shorter than Brosnan, so probably 6'0.5"
Anonymous said on 15/Dec/07
Moore looks 6'1" in the Bond movies. I particularly noticed in Moonraker, he looks equal in height to 6'1" Michael Lonsdale. Not sure about his earlier work. Could have been 6'1.5" in his peak. He was already 45 by the time his first Bond film started shooting, maybe he lost .5".
Meredith said on 25/Nov/07
to Scott B

You've seen all his Bond movies? Pretty much like the average viewer (through the cinema, tv, DVD's). A very good one to compare his height is TMWTG. In the final scene at the lab Chris Lee has a fair 4" on him, and that. So he does look no more than 6'1" assuming Lee was a little over 6'4", wich seems to be the case.
Scott B. said on 24/Nov/07
I am a Big fan of Roger Moore and have all seven of his Bond movies on DVD. Roger was at least 6'1 in the Bond days. When standing back to back with Christopher Lee there was about a 3 inch difference between them. Might even have been 6'2.
Meredith said on 21/Nov/07
he stuntman who did the rock climb commented on how difficult it was to make him look like Roger Moore due to the difference in height.
"He was a big guy, like 6'5", and i'm more like 5'6"

bloke, that's only a way of putting things.
At 5'6" that small dude looked like a stump next to 6'1" Moore.
tubbs said on 26/Sep/07
On the special features of For Your Eyes Only, Rick Sylvester, the stuntman who did the rock climb commented on how difficult it was to make him look like Roger Moore due to the difference in height.
"He was a big guy, like 6'5", and i'm more like 5'6" , now i'm not saying that Roger is anywhere near 6'5", but there is no way a guy who is 6ft even could be mistaken as 6'5", I am still convinced he was 6'2", and now is brushing the 6'1" mark.
Editor Rob said on 23/Sep/07
Lol, I saw old kate o'mara quote calling him 6ft 4!
"The studio were all laughing at the site of this tiny actress (I'm only 5ft 4) nearly laying out the urbane Roger Moore, who is 6ft 4"
Jim said on 17/Sep/07
I came to this site by accident, but by chance, I stood next to roger moore at a swimming pool in london at the time he was playing the saint I was 15 we both were barefoot, wet and pretty much exactly the same height ,I was 6,foot even then.I will say later with his hair up he looked taller
tubbs said on 19/Aug/07
I think Mike was having a larf...Reid never seemed to be 6'2 in Eastenders, especially opposite 6'4" Craig Fairbrass. I would say Mike was 6'0, any ideas Rob?

Editor Rob
fairbrass is 6ft 3, he's said that before. I can't think of reid's height off top of my head though.
Mr Gumby said on 15/Aug/07
The late great Mike Reid used to be a stunt man for Roger in The Saint back in the late 60's and said he was much taller than Roger. Now Mike stood about 6'2 and Roger 6'1 so was Roger wearing lifts, or was Mike having a larf?
tubbs said on 12/Aug/07
Click Here

Quite a good interview here with Roger and Clive Anderson, after about 4 minutes, Roger gives his height as 6'2".
dmeyer said on 30/May/07
in 1995 he looks an easy 4 in on vandamme so eiter in 95 he was steel 6'1 but if he was 6 ft then vandamme is 5'8
Brabek said on 4/May/07
I met Roger Moore in Canada in 2006 and he was about 5 ft 11.5, no more. Peak height was probably 6 ft.
Viper said on 27/Apr/07
Robert is right. Moore has never looked 6-2. Small chance he was 6-1 peak, buu I doubt even that.
Anonymous said on 27/Apr/07
Having seen a lot of Roger Moore's work,dating back to a film he made in 1954, it is easy to see that he was 6'2" at peak height. In the Persuaders he towers over 5'9" Curtis, who in most of the episodes wears what can only be described as some kind of platform heel. When he doesn't there is atleast 5" between them, maybe more. Also in one episode his height is listed as 6'3", he obviously isn't that height, but he is genuinely a tall guy. These days whenever he's on tv he still looks 6'1ish, check him out next to 6'2" Paul O'Grady, the difference is minimal.
Robert said on 23/Apr/07
No way Moore was 6-2 even in his 007 days.
A former Gym teacher at our school was 6-2, and he looks much more taller than Moore. I have not seen them together, but by looking at them apart, you can realize. For example, I also know that Charlton Heston is taller than Jack Nicholson, although I have never seen them together.
So, forget the 6-2 for Moore.
That's nonsense.

Sam said on 20/Apr/07
That 6' listing couldn't be more inaccurate. He was definately 6'2 at his peak back in his 007 days. Now a solid 6'1-6'1.5. He shrunken at all.
tubbs said on 1/Apr/07
Have you seen them with Roger Moore? If not it's impossible to judge who is taller.
Robert said on 31/Mar/07
It is not bizarre.
I also know someone, who is 6'. He has been measured that height, and he clearly looks taller than Roger Moore.
If you compare Zidane and Sampras, I agree that they are about the same height, but both are taller than Roger Moore.
tubbs said on 30/Mar/07
Another bizarre comparison.....maybe if Sampras was involved it would be easier to judge.
Robert said on 23/Mar/07
Moore's peak height never could have been 187 cm.
Compare him to 6-1 football player Zinedine Zidane.
Can Moore have been taller than Zidane? No way.
Do they look the same height? Not either.
Zidane looks clearly taller.
Mario said on 5/Mar/07
Yeah well, Moore was 69 years old by the time that movie did came out and in 95 he did look about Brosnan's height. 6-1 I guess.
Viper said on 4/Mar/07
Its also very possible that Van Damme is as short as 5-8 as well. Roger did have 4-5 inches on Van Damme. That still only puts Moore at 6-1.
Tubbs said on 3/Mar/07
you can probably tell that I am a fan of Rogers, and always thought of him as a solid 6'0", nothing more, nothing less, that was until I saw a quote of his stating that he was 6'2". At first I thought there was no chance of him being that tall, until I saw this site, there is a lot of evidence to suggest he is his claimed height. Recently I have seen The Quest, and dmeyer is pretty much on the money, Roger has atleast 4", sometimes looks like possibly more on Van Damme, who is around the 5'9" mark. I've also seen him in Bullseye with 6'2" Michael Caine, and he is pretty much the same as Caine throughout the whole movie. He is taller than too many 6footers to be anything less. Gotxo, you are a good contributor to the site, with sound reasonings to back up your viewpoints, but you can't honestly believe that the Sea Wolves picture is a reliable source to estimate anyones height, let alone Sir Rogers.
Mario said on 3/Mar/07
Gotxo, a picture in which the celebs are leaning doesn't say much to me + Moore foots are more sinked in the ground. I have similiar photos with friends in which I (180cm) look taller than one of my 184cm friends. Not that it doesn't say much about this, but what I want to say is those pictures aren't good to judge about height.

By the way 191cm Peck has a 3-4cm advantage on Moore in the movie. Did you see the oscar video?
Anthony said on 2/Mar/07
6'2 seems believable enough for me, or within a centimeter.
dmeyer said on 2/Mar/07
in the movie he did with vandamme in 95 the quest he looked easy 10 cm taller so was steel 6'1 10 years ago
Gotxo said on 2/Mar/07
You deny every pic that goes against your beliefs.
Both are loosing height due to bad porture, but Peck's even worse.
And yet ther is more than one inch of advantage for Peck.
Viper said on 1/Mar/07
6-2 for Moore is silly. I could maybe buy 6-1 peak, but not 6-2. Hell, thats pretty much Connery's peak height!!!
Mario said on 1/Mar/07
Gotxo, most people now, including editor rob en glenn think now that Moore was pretty close to the 6 ft 2 mark in his youth, so there is nothing strange about it.

Really, a picture in which Moore is leaning or the horrible pictures that you did once post of Connery and Moore aren't going to change my mind on this guy.

186-187 cm peak height, 185cm for the 90s and currently 183-184cm. That's what my conclusion is after looking hundreds of pictures and watching the saint, the persuaders and of course Bond...
tomking said on 1/Mar/07
My friends who have a little house in Gstaad Switzerland said two month ago, they have seen Roger many times and he is still with 80 years 1.83m or 6 ft.
So the peak height is absolut correct and not logical to say this man was never 6`1.5`` in his younger day.
Gotxo said on 1/Mar/07
You must be blind dude, or you simply don't want to accept proofs that point in other directions than your fanactic thoughts. Roger is not at a lower part of the ground and if his legs are a little crossed Peck's head is too way tilted, so the one loosing more height there is Peck. Roger looks 6' there.
Gotxo said on 26/Feb/07

Same condition affect both, and Peck is VISIBLE TALLER.More than one inch for sure. This guy is very dodgy to measure cause he's genuinely tall, but found of big heeled shoes. After all he's a former model.

BTW you can deny an evidence as big as a temple when you have it in front of your eyes. Peck is 6'3 and Moore is nowhere near 6'2" on that pic.
Mario said on 25/Feb/07
Same conditions? Just look at the ground... then again why don't you respect the opinions of other persons Gotxo?

The oscar video (that sadly isn't anymore avaible) proofed that height difference between Connery and Moore was minimal, at least in 88".
tubbs said on 24/Feb/07
Gotxo.....???!?don't understand what you are trying to say?
Gotxo said on 23/Feb/07

You're mad dude, you're not able to recognise that you were wrong when you get sound evidence in front of your eyes. Peck was 190cm, moore was at the topmost 6'1" , IMHO was between 6'-6'1" wich is allready tall.
The ground is Ok, as same conditions affect Peck too, it's simply he's more than one inch bigger.
He was dwarfed by the real 6'2" Julian Glover in For Your Eyes Only, the camera work was very clever at hidding it, nevertheles is noticeable for a guy with a minimum attention.
Mario said on 21/Feb/07
Yeah well, Peck that great actor was 191cm and if Moore was 187cm (or perhaps it's possible Moore had lost a cm by that time), it makes sense.
Gonzalo said on 21/Feb/07
Whatever you want, Mario. Peck is two inches taller. If you prefer, watch The sea wolves and you will see that Peck is more than an inch taller. And Peck was over sixty in that movie.
Mario said on 20/Feb/07
In the first one Peck is much closer to the camera and in the second you should look at Moore's foot's and the uneven ground.
Gonzalo said on 20/Feb/07
Roger Moore looks clearly shorter than Gregory Peck i these two pictures. Peck was well into his sixties.
Click Here
Click Here
I don`t think Moore reached 6`2 in his prime
tubbs said on 19/Feb/07
When stood opposite the 6'2" Van Johnson in The Last Time I Saw Paris, Roger was atleast the same height, and in some scenes looked 0.5" taller. The film was made in 1954, so Roger would have been 26 or 27 at the time, this would probably be a good indication of his peak height. When he has mentioned 6'2" as his height in the past, I honestly think he has been telling the truth.
Bob said on 15/Feb/07
Imagine that you will see a picture of Moore and Pete Sampras, and you see that Moore is at least the same height as him.
Would you not laugh?
Anthony said on 15/Feb/07
When did all this talk of Moore being average come about? Moore was clearly at least 6'1 at his peak.
Bob said on 14/Feb/07
I would say that Moore is a guy of average range. He might be closer to the tall class, but I would not consider him as definitely tall.
Glenn said on 11/Feb/07
Thank heavens I know where my Roger Moore pic is.there is tons of old stuff I never posted.will do in time.I also lost at least 50 pics,maybe double that.I have friends that lost that and a couple of hundred as well.ouch.
tubbs said on 10/Feb/07
Good finds Mario....goes to show that Connery and Roger are very close in height, certainly not a 2" difference, and also the picture of Roger with Dalton and Lazenby shows that in 2002 he was very close in height to those two. Recently watched North Sea Hijack, and Moore has a good shot with George Baker near the start of the movie, Baker who is a genuine 6'4" only had a couple of inches at most on him. Moore also looked the nearly same as 6'2.5" Anthony Perkins, and had atleast 3" on James Mason. I think Moore should be put back upto atleast 6'0.5" for his current height, he was up there until Frank2 said he saw him buying a cardigan in the States!?!.....Glenn has met him, and he marked him as 6'1", there is plenty of evidence to suggest he is still near the 6'1". By the way Glenn, do you know what happened to your photo with Sir Roger?
Mario said on 10/Feb/07
Here a some more pics:
Click Here
Robert said on 9/Feb/07
Sean Conney is taller than Roger Moore.Their height difference is not that much but Connery is still taller.
tubbs said on 8/Feb/07
Click Here

Looks the same as Connery, and about half inch shorter than Caine....around 6'1.5" still in 1988.
Robert said on 1/Feb/07
There is nothing that someone can say about his height, unless you see him barefeet.
Anthony said on 31/Jan/07
He was 187 when he played Bond. He looked it next to many, many co-stars, including the 6'5 Christopher Lee. And he's still tall today.
Robert said on 29/Jan/07
Use your brain guys.
Does it sound realistic that Moore was 187 cm, when playing James Bond?
Everyone I know that is 187, looks taller than Moore.
Foget 187 cm for Moore.
5-11 is enough
Anthony said on 27/Jan/07
Thank you, tubbs.
tubbs said on 25/Jan/07
To back up what Anthony is saying, when the producers of Bond were looking for someone to play the roll they advertised for guys who were atleast 6'1"...Connery obviously got the gig, who was near enough 6'3" back then, do you really think he'd have got the role if he was 5'10, the same applies to Roger Moore.
Anthony said on 24/Jan/07
Actually, height is very important to 007. The character of James Bond is supposed to be the ideal male fantasy: handsome, built, charming, intelligent, suave, adventurous and, yes, TALL. Height is essential to the character. One of the reasons people complain about Craig is that he was under the 6' mark (he looks 5'10 even at best to me).
Mike said on 24/Jan/07
Anthony, of course he would be chosen as bond if he would be average height.
Height does not play such a big role.
The best is if you see him barefeet.
George H said on 24/Jan/07
Moore is not even just 5'10" now! In his prime he always looked a legit 6'2" or very close to that. He doesn't strike me as a lifts guy, simply because he's got a realistic and fair view of himself. He was the first one to say he looked to old to continue playing Bond and he also was one of the few stars who always made and makes jokes about him only showing up for close-ups and that the rest of the stuff was all done by super athletic stunt guys and stand-ins. That doesn't sound like a guy who'd wear lifts to look taller. If you saw him in older movies he was always one of the taller guys. In that series he did with Tony Curtis he was mor than half a head taller and much broader build as well. 5'10" is ludicrous.
Anthony said on 23/Jan/07
Mike, Moore was not a lifts guy. He was legit 187 cm in his prime. If he was of average height, would he have been chosen as Bond? It would be known if a Bond actor wore lifts, as Brosnan, Dalton and Craig have all been rumored. Connery, Lazeny and, yes, Moore, are legit 6'1-6'2 guys (though I think Connery looked closer to 6'3 in his prime).
Mike said on 22/Jan/07
This guy certainly wears lifts that make him a couple of inches taller.
I would say that he is a guy of average height.
tubbs said on 18/Jan/07
Mike, the Sampras comparison is pretty random, what about comparisons with co stars, and other celebs. I must admit that I thought he was 6'0 peak, and around 5'11 now. That was until I saw this website, and there seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest 6'1.5/2. Even now he looks near 6'1, catch him whenever he's on the Paul O Grady show, and he's nearly the same as 6'2 O'Grady.
Mike said on 17/Jan/07
If 5'10 is unrealistic, then lets add it to 5'11"
6-2 is unrealistic as well. Compare him for example with tennisplayer Pete Sampras, who is 6-1, and Moore is at least the same height as Sampras is.Does that not sound unrealistic?I mean, Sampras really occurs to be taller.
Glenn said on 16/Jan/07
Near 6-2 in youth.
Anthony said on 16/Jan/07
Mike, I disagree. I definitely think he was 6'1-6'1.5 (probably 6'2-6'2.5 in shoes). In "The Man With The Golden Gun", he looked about 3.5-4 inches smaller than Christopher Lee, who was a solid 6'5 in his prime. So maybe he wasn't quite 6'2 except for in the morning, but in his peak he was at least 6'1. 5'10 and especially 5'9 are unrealistic.
Mike said on 16/Jan/07
No, Moore is not taller than Connery.I would say that connery is taller, but just a little bit on that picture, but this is not true either, because Connery looks to be more than one inch taller.
Moore must certainly have worn lifts, because he really does not look like being a tall man.
Mike said on 15/Jan/07
Anthony,he might not be 5-9, but he could never have been 6-2.That's not realistic.
Anthony said on 15/Jan/07
5'9 is rediculous, 6'2 or close to it at his peak is believable.
Mike said on 14/Jan/07
Moore really does not look like being tall.
I would say he is around 5-9. In case he is taller, then 5-10 at best.
I know friends who are 185, and it is obvious that they are taller.
pianochris123 said on 6/Jan/07
I walked past him with a friend of mine in Charing Cross, London. He is still just about six foot. Not bad considering he's 80 this year. Still the 2nd best Bond ever as well!
tomking said on 6/Jan/07
Friends of us saw him in 2003 in Gstaad (Switzerland) and they said he is 6ft.
He is 79 Years old now!His peak height is correct.
Glenn said on 25/Dec/06
I met him in 1991.he was near 6-2 in his youth.shrunk to 6-1 in 1991,and maybe less now.
Robin said on 24/Dec/06
I think Roger was never more than 6ft, He was in a film with David Niven who claimed to be 6ft and Roger stuggled to be as tall. Rogers claimed height was always 6ft2. His friend, Mr Connery, never claimed to be over 6ft1.
Anonymous said on 18/Nov/06
with 6ft 5 christopher lee
Click Here
Mario said on 20/Sep/06
Gotxo, if your arguments aren't false? Why don't you post hyperlink here on Celebheights to the pictures of 'Young' Connery and 'Young' Moore together? I'm getting curious on those pics which proof according to [b]you[/b], your statement.

Most actors round there height up? Short actors Gotxo, but is Moore a short actor (?)and what would be the point of adding a half inch to his height? This can't be even considered argument Gotxo. Also your arguments get weak, weaker and weaker. Gotxo: Moore is 6 ft 1, because there are two black guy's taller than him in LALD and he wears 70s cowboy boots in a 70s movie... c'mon....
Gotxo said on 19/Sep/06
You've a problem, i've to excuse of nothing, cause my arguments are not false.
I asume i could be wrong or the likes, but i'm not lying.
If i repeat similar things is that because till the date i havent't changed my mind on the subject.
Recheck your statements, if you ask me photos of both being young and next to each other, and you say it's impossible beacause they are scarce, then your argumentes can't have neither no graphical backup.

The only one who insults here is you, me saying that Moore exaggerates is not saying nothing wrong. Most actors do it because their agents say what they are supposed to say..."yeah i'm as tall as people expect me to be", "as successfull as in films", "i do eat that, i do not eat this".
That's part of the game chap, it's simply to understand.
Anonymous said on 18/Sep/06
theres a reasonably good pic of brosnan and moore on the set of goldeneye in the book james bond - the legacy. they look about the same height
Mario said on 17/Sep/06
I'm not insulting Got'x'o. But it annoy's that you say this every time:

" but never looked that compared to connery, even if he was supposedly 187cm and the later 189cm. The difference between them was noticeable."

Come with photos in which both men are young and if you can find them because they don't exist, excuse yourself for your false arguments. Now you are even insulting Roger Moore because he doesn't say the height that you want that he's.
Gotxo said on 16/Sep/06
Insulting again Mario?
Well you're not able to write properly my nick.
That might explain why do you confuse a guess with a certainty, you don't have a basis, you've a guess: Moore's shrunkment during his middle age.
Well there´s no prove at all of the former bigger height, nor of the shrunkment
Again you've same as me ideas, not facts.
The only diff are a lot of insults to expense.
Mario said on 16/Sep/06
Gotzo, don't be that Ignorant. You are always talking about Connery being so much taller than Moore, but you can't even come with photos in which both men are young. I have a basis, you don't.
Gotxo said on 15/Sep/06
Mario, we're on a Dead End, sorry but your reasons aren't better than mines, we're only just gessing, mind that. No not every one's height decreases in same manner but you're taking that Moore's shrunkment for granted with no basis at all.
Mario said on 9/Sep/06
Gotxo, once again you come with the Connery defence which doesn't say nothing. There are only "good" pictures of the two Bond's which come from the end the 80s, 90s and 00s. Tell me because you still haven't tell me Gotxo what that says about there peak height? Do you think that everyone lost the same height Gotxo?
Gotxo said on 8/Sep/06
Rob- To me that 6'2" sounds like an stretch, he can look very tall du to his
slender figure, but never looked that compared to connery, even if he was supposedly 187cm and the later 189cm. The difference between them was noticeable.
He also was a male model in his youth, lying about measures in that profession is common too.
Viper652 said on 8/Sep/06
I dont even buy that 6-2 morning height at all still. I still think hes 6-0 1/2 peak.
Editor Rob said on 8/Sep/06
Indiana Evening Gazette, 1967 Moore says:
6ft 2 "early in the late after noon I'm 5 feet 3" and 175lbs back then.
half joking, but an actor using their morning height now...can't blame em.
Tubbs said on 6/Sep/06
Click Here link from Rogers own website, taken from a story in the early 60's.

Editor Rob
was channel flicking the other week and saw a scene in one bond, where he looked taller than desmond q guy, both were standing beside george baker.

Baker does claim on his resume to have been 6ft 4, don't know though
piwo81 said on 31/Aug/06
Did anyone see spot that he was a little shorter than Walken (6') in "A View To A Kill" ?? How can he be 187 then???
the man with the golden gun said on 31/Aug/06
People on here are underestimating Roger Moores height. In the height of his fame he was a comfortable 6'2", watch him next to 6'4 Julius Harris (Tee Hee)in Live an Let Die.Even now he looks around the 6'1" mark.
Gotxo said on 24/Aug/06
tubbs said on 15/Aug/06
In Live And Let Die, we don't see the feet I don't think in the scene which Gotxo mentions, so maybe the bouncers are in platform shoes. It fits in with the era, there is also a shot in the car park scene of a platform shoe or two. What i'm trying to say is that they may have put 6'3 or 4 actors in platforms to look even bigger compared to Roger.
Mario said on 12/Aug/06
Why would it be unlikely? because it doesn't favour your theories?
The henchman of the bad-guy's in Bond-movie's are always on the tall side. Jaws, Hans, Tall german of TND, Gobinda, Kaufman, Necros etc... are all from 190 to 220cm.
piwo81 said on 4/Aug/06
with connery:
Click Here
Gotxo said on 2/Aug/06
What matters?
He wears them in several scenes trhought the film, so that flic is not a valid way to compare him to supposedly tall co-stars.
Plus when he meets Solitarie for his #1 time in the secreet room of "The fillet of soul" he's taken out from there by two black bouncers.
If he was 6'2" then both bouncers would be like 6'5" or maybe over, possible but unlikely.
tubbs said on 1/Aug/06
I have the DVD of Live and Let Die, and it mentions the crocodile shoes in the special features. It has a close up of thm on Rogers feet, and they are low cut slip on shoes, not boots, as Gotxo mentions.
chris said on 30/Jul/06
I have seen Roger walking near Leicester Square, he looked smaller than I expected but he was not that close to me and he is getting quite old now. Six foot sounds about right though.
Mario said on 26/Jul/06
I haven't sayd that he does only wears them in the Crocodile farm? And what does it matter that he wears crocodile boots in some parts? It are the 70s, part of the mode....For more information about the Crocodile boots watch the LALD documantary. Be realistic.
Gotxo said on 25/Jul/06
Watch again LALD Moore wears boots throughout the film, not only in the croc farm /drug fabric scene.
Jiga said on 25/Jul/06
this is the pic i'm talking about:
Roger Moore with 6'5 Christopher Lee
Click Here
Anonymous said on 11/Jul/06
viper wow..... i have not seen u once say an actor is taller then hes listed.. always u say atleast 2 inches short.. more looks 6 ft 1.5 too me
Mario said on 29/Jun/06
First. Tubbs isn't my after-ego.
Second. It's the first comment and I don't know which shot I'm refering, certainly not the Kotto and Moore shot, because I have been pretty clear about that in numerious occasion. So your once again trying change the facts.

No, I going to change my defence on Moore height. Did the classic Bond actors Llewelyn (Q) Bernard Lee (M) and Lois Maxwell (monnypenny) all lose 4/5 cm between between 1971 (Connery''s last Bond outing) and 1974 (the first movie with Llewelyn and Moore appear together)?

Llewelyn and Bernard had certainly reach a point there life in which they should start shrunking, but it's unbelievable to lose so much height in three years.

Your defence has been that he's always been shorter than Connery (despite that you have only posted pics in which they are both 60 years +) and the Crocodile Boots, which is an inside joke.
Gotxo said on 29/Jun/06
Yeah, sorry i messed identities, it was your alter ego Tubbs who posted that promo pic, but you showed the same lack of judgement on the subject as making a comment as this one

Mario Nariano says on 25/Nov/05
That's good shot Tubbs. Wich proofes that Moore was at the age of 45, 6 ft 2.

Tubbs says on 25/Nov/05 Tubbs says on 25/Nov/05
Publicity shot for Live And Let Die, next to 6'3 Kotto, looks 6'2 here, now tell me Roger 5'11/6'0 peak height.
Click Here

Maybe Tubbs didn't realized it was a promo, but you, being able to emit a critical valoration on it, did a enthusiastic fan one's.
Not a sin, but i think you're more interested in the image he represents rather than in the real man.

Piwo81: Who cares? The stunt has to wear same clothes as the star he suplants.
piwo81 said on 29/Jun/06
Gotxo, in this scene with crocodiles it was not Moore but a real crocodile keeper who did this unbelievable stunt (and there was no cheating, he really did it on real crocodiles!!!). It was revealed in a documentary film about bond series. You only see his legs ofcourse.
Dave said on 29/Jun/06
There is a scene in M's office in Moonraker where Llewelyn and Moore stand right next to each other.

There is hardly any difference between them. At most, Q is only about half an inch taller. If Moore wasn't 1.88 then he can't be less than 1.87
Mario said on 29/Jun/06
My comment about Kotto and Moore

Mario says on 16/Feb/06
"Kotto looks 6 ft 4 + in Alien and he is an half head taller than Anthony Quinn, ehm.... I think that there aren't good scenes to compare Moore with Kotto."
Mario said on 29/Jun/06
Tubbs, did once post that pic, not I. Use "CTRL F"

"As Moore was not as big as Connery, producers tried to compensate that in first films untill Moor'es position as Bond was consolidated."

Sorry but this pure trash, watch The Live and Let Die documantary for the "Crocodil Boots" Joke. Just like if the Audience could see the few CM difference. Also if Moore was 6 feet, Desmond Llewelyn would have losed hmmm 5/6 cm between 1967 and 1974, kinda unbelievable.
Gotxo said on 28/Jun/06
Mario on promo pics:
Yes you did, you once posted this as an height indicator:
Click Here
Quite clear they all are not at same level (unever floor?)
And dont try to deny it.

As Moore was not as big as Connery, producers tried to compensate that in first films untill Moor'es position as Bond was consolidated.
This shot is from Live and let die, in the moment when Bond's life is endangered
by crocs:
Click Here

Wether it was the fashion of the time, i doubt Connery would have wore them in same situation.

Mario said on 28/Jun/06
I have never used promo posters to demonstrate his supposed 6 ft 2. And if you scroll down you will see that mention that ypu can't compare Moore with kotto in LALD, because there aren't good shots.
Gotxo said on 27/Jun/06
I do negate the hints you make when they rest upon weak basis, as say the promo posters of LALD, there Moore can look taller than Kotto simple because those kind of pictures are edited. You belive whatever you see because you don't analyze it. Today is much simpler with photoshop, but that technique is not new, models get longer lengs, better proportions or even different eye color.
I don't rule out 6'2" for Moore i just simply think is too much for him, show my point, sometimes accept different opinions, some others i don't.

You perceive any opposed opinion as an attack, and fight back with much less respect than i use to address you.
Stop messing confronted ideas with personal confrontation.
Mario said on 27/Jun/06
Correction they didn't enhaced Moore height because it's useless (or should I say even stupid?) to make him 1 inch taller. It just isn'taken from below so it's doesn't give a false illusion.

"Producers wanted big foes for bond withouth dwarfing him, they casted Lee for his acting skills & image, but compensating the excess in height."

Please stop this obsession, there are a lot villians who make the Bond's of the movie's look short. Let's not begin about Hans (of YOLT) o Jaws (TSWLM) or that German guy of the Brosnan one's

"The beach issue was started by you, and now that it fails in the task of showing a taller Moore, you blame me as if it was my idea using it as a proof."

Roger Moore looks 3/ 3,5 inches shorter than Lee in ther other shots of the movie.

The Funny thing about your arguements of Moore's height, is that you negate every shot/ proofe that he was actually closer to 6 ft 2 and only want to see the one in which he looks shorter (you even go by pictures of the 90s with Connery, which don't say nothing about his peak height).
Gonzalo said on 27/Jun/06
Well, the topic again: a six foot guy in Spain will be considered tall, and taller than the average spanish guy. But that person will not de freaking tall as some people are saying. I see many six foot guys everyday, less than in the Netherlands, Germany, USA or Great Britain, but many anyway.
Gotxo said on 26/Jun/06
The beach issue was started by you, and now that it fails in the task of showing a taller Moore, you blame me as if it was my idea using it as a proof.
They enhaced Moore for more than an ichf for that shot, i said a 4" diff and being conservative.
Producers wanted big foes for bond withouth dwarfing him, they casted Lee for his acting skills & image, but compensating the excess in height.

Hvk/almost 40:
You mess Spanish with some LatinoAmericanos, Spanish are mediterranean as all latinos, wich truly implies Portuguese, Spanish (from Spain), French, Italian and Romanian.
All of wich are mediterranean and caucasian, what you mean are Latinoamericanos, the ones who share tongue with us but are far related to asiatic live in same side of the atlantic as you, and still small due to lack of wellfare. 6' foot is tall but far away exceptional.
Viper652 said on 26/Jun/06
Mario does have a good point about the sand though.
Mario said on 25/Jun/06
Guy's it's taken on a beach where there is sand! Think a little!
You know the scene in which they come both out of the elevator, right? Well compare or close Lee comes to the top and compare it with Moore.

They didn't "enhaced" Moore height is that shot, because they wanted a villian that was considerable taller than Bond for this movie (and why would they enhaced Moore an inch for one shot?). Also Gotxo your arguement that they always wanted to make Moore taller in the Bond movie's aren't credible. They casted Richard Kiel in Spy for god sake. Yaphet Kotto,Curd Jürgens and Julian Glover are all taller villians than Moore in they look taller than him in the movie's (they don't use trick to make Moore taller).
Larry said on 25/Jun/06
In his prime, Christopher Lee was my height (6'5"). Although slimmer... :-) In Frank's photo of Lee with Moore I DO see 4-5 inches between the two. That's about where my 6'0.5" Dad came on me.
HvK said on 24/Jun/06
I am a spaniard and I have to say that 6' is not that common here. Saying that is simply ridiculous. Of course there are tallish guys, but I am 5'11" and I'm taller than approximately 8 out of 10 guys walking in the spanish streets. A six footer is seen as a huge gay in here, without a doubt.
Gotxo said on 24/Jun/06
Yeah, they "enhaced" Moore's height in that shot as Lee is (or was) 6'5", very normal since Moore is the star, not Lee.
I think Moore was not over 6'1" for sure, i even could buy a lil over 6' but never under that, plus you met him and currently is your height.
People can shrunk a lot, but in this case i think he wasn't as tall as advertised.
Frank2 said on 24/Jun/06
I have the movie and Lee is almost five inches taller than Moore.

Click Here

Here's a B & W shot: Click Here

Mario said on 22/Jun/06
But whe are forgetting something.
The picture has been taken in the Beach of Scarmanga's Island where the ground isn't the same.

I have never think about it to to be honest.
Gotxo said on 21/Jun/06
I still thinks that if both guys are shot from same confussing angle, the distortion gonna distort them same.
In the novel TMWGG Scaramanga is 6'3", not a giant, whilst Bond is 6'.
The difference in your link is that 3", in mine is like 4" or maginaly over, Bond films are commonly loosely adaptations from their respective novels, thought get reasonably near.I think that in this case they wanted both and excellent actor & foe for Bond and Lee was it, as long as they find a way to not diminish Moore too much.
Mario said on 21/Jun/06
It's taken from below, and that can be confusing and Lee looks even Bulky.
The producers dind't even want that Moore looked tall next to Lee. Lee was cast because he was a really tall guy with much presence. A guy who looks on the first side in every aspect better than Bond.
Gotxo said on 20/Jun/06
I've to disagree, your shot is part of the film metrage, showing bond as producers like it: A tall man fighting a superior enemy.
My shot is a one taken by a photographic camera on the set and shows the real difference, a tall man beside a huge one, not part of the filmic narrative, no values conveyed, just a show of the diversity that exist in real world.
And as of judging the quality of the shot, mind this:
Both men are at same distance of the camera & angle, what does matter they are taken from a low position camera? the shown differece is gonna be the same.

That's my point of view, sure you have another one on that pair of pics, and if you show me the reasons why you think i'm wrong, i'll be glad to hear it.
Mario said on 20/Jun/06
It's the same shot but it's taken from below, it's even at lee's favour. Lee even looks bulky there. My shot is much better because it's taken from a better view.

Eyy Gotxo, I'm still waithing for the shots of Connery and Moore taken in the 60s and 70s. I asked them an half-year ago and still haven't seen them.
Mario said on 19/Jun/06
I don't see a 12 cm difference Viper!

Click Here

There is another shot taken from below, but this one is better. I see 7cm or so. 187cm as Rob list him is his peak height. I Have done enough research and I bet that rob has done the same.

Editor Rob
speaking of Lee,

see Women beside Lee with normal heels, she is, well these days, didn't look shorter than 169cm...we were nearly eye to eye.
Viper652 said on 18/Jun/06
I reckon Moore was 184cm peak height. That back to back shot with Christopher Lee in Man with the Golden gun pretty much confirms it.
Mario said on 18/Jun/06
Uh he always looked 4-5 inches taller than Tony Curtis in the persuaders. Curtis comes to eyes most of the time, and Moore's head is probably 25 cm long. You should notice that in a lot of scenes they put Curtis closer to the camera, and/or in higher ground.

Click Here
Click Here

What I'm saying that thinking he's under 6 feet is crazy, I haven't seen a single picture in which he looks shorter than 6 feet nowedays.

Moore did also look a strong 187cm next to Chris Lee (he comes a couple of cms above Lee's eyeline) in The Man With Golden. Gun.
Gotxo said on 17/Jun/06
Why then he didn't look much past 6' compared to 5-9" (tops) Tony Curtis in the persuaders? I think he might be between 5'11" and 6' now, that's my guess as i haven't meet him never, but it doesn't sound crazy to me.
In the Quest he didn't look more than 4" taller Van Dame, wich i don't think is over 5'9" (i rule out 5'10" for the belgian).
And again, i'm guessing 6' or 6'1" for Moore at his peak, is that downgrading?
Don't think so, please avoid using words as hypocrite,whenever you hear an statement that differs yours you feel it like an attack, that's not reasonable.
Mario said on 16/Jun/06
Glenn did met Roger Moore in 1990 when Moore was 63 years old, what has that to do with has this peak height? This being an hyprocrite.
Most witness account estimate him by the way 6 ft 1 and 6 ft 2 (look at mi6, commanderbond etc, those who say 5 ft 11 are ussualy "Downgraders"), he is easy one the tallest guy's at ceromony's, and there are enough pictures in which he can look 2 cm shorter than Connery or exact the same height.
It's crazy to think that he is in the 5 ft 11 range, how tall do you estimante Van Damme then, 5 ft 6? [laugh]
By the way, you say that there are no sightings of that he could have been close to 6 ft 2 in the past. Have you seen him beside 6 ft 3,5 Sutherland in the saint? That Picture with a full straig Roger Moore and full straight 6 ft 6 actor and Desmond Llewelyn did probably lose 3 inches between Diamonds Are Forever (71') and The Man with the Golden Gun (74') according to you.
Gotxo said on 14/Jun/06
Connery was a legit 6'2", he might have lost a bit of height but much of this is due to posture, he's still like 4cm bigger than Moore, who never was as tall as him.
So 181-182cm looks right for him, plus it coincides with most of witness accounts describing him either 5'11" or 6' but never in hell still 6'1".
That 6'2" account comes only from own Roger's mouth, Glenn, wich in my opinion most of times is an accurate guy, described him as 6'1" back 15 years ago, so there are no sightments for him @ 6'2" nor in the past, nor today.
On the contrary they are for Connery, isn't easier to think he really was whilst Moore wasn't quite that tall?
Mario said on 13/Jun/06
Roger Moore's pictures with Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby, Michail Caine and Sean Connery (who are all between 6 ft 1 and 6 ft 2). Still looks 183-185 cm, most probably 184cm for his current height.

In fact I haven't seen a single picture in which he looks 5 ft 11.5
Gotxo said on 13/Jun/06
To me it's clear he's not currently over 6 feet but opposite, maybe still surpases 5'11" wich is quite good for his age. Plus Frank has met him recently and sustains the same point. I think Rob get best when he doesn't pretend to, 184cm is a very good guess for him. I do mantain that he obviously shrunk, prolly about an inch, maybe more. 6'1" in his youth is possible, 6'2" even in his youth is too much. He can look that, but he had rake thin legs, lon limbs (both arms & legs), wide chest and T shaped shoulders, so he looked taller than he was.
178cm is truly belivable for the spanish between 18-23 y.o., they are real tall, the stats for the general is a 176.5cm.
I'm the same height as you Mario, i'm conscious that i don't draw attention by my height, and i meet everyday a lot of guys taller than me in Madrid.
I also did in Durango (The original one in Basque Country) which is a small village.
Mario said on 12/Jun/06
Incorrect, most pictures still suggest that he's over 6 feet.

By the way...
If I dind't know what the avarage height for men was in Spain (which is 178cm), i would say 175cm or so.
Gotxo said on 9/Jun/06
This Roger Moore forum, but i've to respond.
you've ni puta idea also. :D
My guess for Moore over six foot when young, dont think he got a sound 6'1", but i can accept otherwise, the problem here is that we lack reliable witness that met him in his youth.
Gotxo said on 8/Jun/06
Almost 40
You have ni puta idea (hope your time in spain allows to understand that comment).
I'm a solid 5'11", my 187cm friend doesn't consider himself very tall, my tall friends think i'm medium, my small friends think i'm medium-tall, but not tall.
6' very tall in Spain LMAO!! 6' is no longer very tall in Europe, though is tall.
One of my neighbours in Madrid is over 6'6" one of my work mates too (of course exceptions, is they who attract atention).
Walking by uninportant streets i feel towered everyday by not an small number of guys (can swear you). I do not detach in the crowd, most of guys are near my height (under or over by a few cms).
Or you not have been to here or you are a too high concept of yourself.
Almost 40 and no girlfriend said on 7/Jun/06
Gotxo, quita diciendo esos comentarios estupidos. If you are 5-11, you are tall in Spain, and you are tall in USA, just you don't tower over as many people. I have been there, I have walked through Madrid, I have been to bars, clubs, and believe me, a 6 footer will attract attention. Many chicas espanolas will comment on your height. Doesn't mean there aren't tall people. I saw a guy close to 7 feet when I was there. He was stopping traffic. But overall, if you are 6 feet in Spain, you are a tall guy, not a giant, just a very tall guy, and no girl will say you are "bajito". Viva Espana!!!!
sam2 said on 5/Jun/06
Roger Moore was never over 6' 1"
Gotxo said on 3/Jun/06
This is Moore devoted page, bad actor, superb star and tall guy over 6'.
Other than that, thank you a lot for your comments, wich show a lot of knowledge
on Spanish famosetes ;)
Enrique is Spanish born from an spanish father and a filipino mother.
I never feel tall in Madrid (nor sort) being as tall as you, walk trough "Gran Via" and "Francisco Silvela" you always meet tall guys, some well past 6'3".

As for Connery's sightments at 6', i don't think he shrunk 2", maybe he is an horrible sloucher at his old age. One of my friends is a solid 6'2", but uses to hunch a lot,when the guy does that his eyes are only 2 cm taller than mines.
I guess that wen our time for assylum comes we'll be the same height LOL.
Mario said on 3/Jun/06
Isn't Enrique Iglesias half-spanish?
Still Bertin osborne, Coto Matamoros, Kiko Matamoros, Poty, Fernando Romay, The prince, The King of Spain, Mariano Rajoy and Jose Luis Zapatero are more than 6 ft for sure.

At 5 ft 11, I can feel myself tall sometimes when I walk in the streets of Madrid.
Gotxo said on 2/Jun/06
The point is not Enrique Iglesias height, the point is that when you make a statement based on reflection, logic and experience wether is right or wrong, some people do not discuss it rebating arguments but simply discard it using rancid topics.
The point is that when someone do not like what we say simply attack our icons,
well, i do not even like Enrique's music, but he's sucessfull and that's a sin.

The point is that being 5'11" that's a rather common height in Spain and to pretend that some guy being a single inch taller is a giant among us is a joke, as is not in any civilisez +wellfare enjoying country.

I would like to hear senseful counteropinions, not attacks to my nationality.
If i do cite facts is to lead to people to think, i can not transmit the my experience as it's imposible, nor my point of view as it wouldn't be ethical nor objective. But i can show them plain data and my reading on them so they are able to agree with it or boldly, reject it. I think that's fair.
Gotxo said on 1/Jun/06
Almost 40 (or Whoever you are):
I don't belive you, i'm a strong 5'11" and that's not short but i do not tower over anybody. Various stats from official sources gives 176.5cm for the general mean, but when it comes the time to talk of teenager a survey of year 2000 gave 178cm for the ones who where 18-21 y old(then). I can belive that.

If you think mean in USA is 175cm you're nuts, that's below average even in Spain, a Survey of 1998 rendered 177cm for whites, but i guess even that is under the mean now. 175cm was the mark since '50s to '70s-'80s Update yourself!

A final data 174cm was the mean in england in the '50s, now is 178cm (and they were pretty tall for that decade standards).Doesn't that tell you something?

You feed on topics to write nosense, and it's boring rather than amusing.
Well maybe Connery is not much over 6' now but he was near 6'2" when young (wether over or under) but Moore was never under 6' in his youth.
Almost 40 and loves pro wrestling said on 1/Jun/06
well I have been to Spain and I can tell you if you are legit 6 feet you pretty much tower over most Spanish men. Even the spaniard girls say Spanish men are "bajitos", which mean short compared to American men. If you are 6 feet in USA you are still tall since the average height is 5-9 for american men, but just not very tall.

I would say, barefooted, no shoes, Moore is about 5-10+ and Connery about 6 feet even. With shoes, Moore is about 6 feet and Connery close to 6-2 since shoes often add at least 1" if not more to height, especially hard soled dress shoes, which these guys wear.
Gotxo said on 31/May/06
I think Connery was 6'2", half an inch up, or down.
Taking in consideration the last pic and supossing Moore is 182cm nowadays i guess Connery is 6'1.25" or a shade above. And for Caine, maybe he was a bit over 6'1" and rounded up an inch.

Since you've met Connery you've have to get a rough or accurate idea of his height in the present. Wich one is yours?
Gonzalo said on 31/May/06
It´s hard for me to believe that Connery is just six feet tall nowadays. He came to Spain recently and he was taller than everybody else. And six feet tall isn´t very tall, not even in Spain. He always looks tall and big.
Frank2 said on 29/May/06
Both Connery and Caine are no longer as tall as they were as younger men. When I saw Connery he wasn't that much taller than me and I'm a solid 5'11". Neither was Moore.
Mario said on 29/May/06
A picture of the same event as what Piwo posted
Click Here
Mario said on 29/May/06
Look at pic 2.
Look at Connery's shoulder (it's higher situated than Moore's shoulder) and look at the size of there heads. Those pics are at Moore favour, but there isn't much difference.
Gotxo said on 29/May/06
I still see Roger shorter than both but i admit the difference is minimal not quite an inch in the case of Caine, near that on Connery's.
Good point on that of photos, now i'm more confused that ever, but still have Glenn and Frank givin him 6'1" and near (a lil over i suppose) 5'11" at different ages.
piwo81 said on 27/May/06
Moore shorter then Connery and Caine? Not in these pictures:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
It only shows that watching photos can be very misleading.
Gotxo said on 25/May/06

Yes, EON publicited every actor as 6'2" wether donwgrading or upgrading them,
it's upt to the audience to belive they are wer clones made after the same cast.
No, i've never said Moore was 5'11", i've said that he can be now near that range,(my words "can't resist to see him under 182cm"), since Frank2 has met him recently and said he was pretty similar to him in height, in the past Gleen met him and said he looked 6'1".
But i can buy also a shade over 6' when young, Connery was the huge guy, Moore was fairly tall for his generation, and the good looking one.
They played the same role, but that makes not them equal.
Mario said on 25/May/06
EON has promoted every Bond at 6 ft 2, even George Lazenby who could have been 6 ft 3! 6 ft 2 is for some the perfect height.

Some here think that Moore is 5 ft 11 now, wich he doesn't look in pictures. This doesn't make sense unless Brosnan is in the 5 ft 11 range and Timothy Dalton 6 foot, and you Gotxo also think that Dalton is still in the 6 ft 2 range isn't it? And don't forget that a 180cm range for Moore would mean that Van Damme is 167-168 cm.

I agree on the 1/2 cm thing, it's impossible to know. But Connery has been measured at 6 ft 2.4, he has sayd that he is 6 ft 2, he has said that he is 189cm tall, he has looked it. And I still don't know why some keep saying that he is 187cm wich comes from nowhere. Some poeple is just obsesionated (not you Gotxo) with downgrading stars, just to feel themself better or so.
Viper652 said on 24/May/06
From what Ive seen Id say Moore was 184cm at his peak, and Connery was 187cm at his peak.
Gotxo said on 24/May/06
I don't think Connery has ever wore lifts, it's quite clear he's both tall and huge (oversized hands, feet, chest for his height whateveris the size for it)

He has looked easily a lot of times the 189cm you claim for him , but that's only 2 cm from 187cm. What i mean is that this is a diff hard to judge even if you meet the guy personally. We can't assure this, that's my point, even being that very feasible to me (indeed i'm inclined to think he was it when young).
To discuss for 1 or 2cm is pointless, unless you need it to fix cabalistic math acrobacies in order to backup a guess.
You should first have a guess and later try to match facts one with another, not feeling someone deserves a certain height and afterwards concoct math jugglings to make it work.

6' is not short by any means, and a lanky long limbed one can look much taller being this. Fernando Torres is "only" 184cm and looks 6'2" in pictures and even in the field from long distance.

My opinion on this is that when the Bond replacement had to come, EON staff advertised Moore as being a Connery's pair to prevent the audience felt cheated. Not only in height, but in various means (on firts films Moore even beated gals, to appear as though and feelings-spare as Connery), so to get a continuity in bondian features.
Mario said on 24/May/06
I personally think that Van Damme is 5 ft 8 and the top of his head comes to Moore's eyes. Let's Assume (this is impossible to know exactly) that Moore's head is 25cm long, so Moore would be easy 12/13 cm on Van Damme. Moore was 68 years old when he apparead with Van Damme.

I will never discart 6 ft 1 (as peak height for Roger Moore), but 6 feet is way to low for Roger. This is purely based on what I have seen of Roger..

Note: The 189cm his what Connery looked in my opinion in his early movies. I'm 99% sure about this and unless someone proofes that Connery did wear lifts I will not change my opinion.

Mario said on 23/May/06
Stop that friend, we are not even sure if Connery was 189 or 187cm, but the fact is he had 3-4cm on Moore, making him 6'1" at best.[/B]

- I have done my own research and Connery did look in my opinion 189cm at his peak. So don't say 'we' please.

-It's not a fact that Moore always been 3/4 cm shorter than Connery. In some Pictures of the 90s, Moore looks 3 cm shorter, but there are also pics of the 90s wich Moore looks a cm shorter, this has nothing to do with there peak height due the fact that they are old and have lost height. You have said this many times and you don't have any proofe.

In 96' Moore was at least as tall as Brosnan
in 96' Moore was an half-head taller Jean Claude Van damme
in 02' Moore was an inch shorter than Timothy Dalton and Lazenby. Both men are in 188cm range.
Picture said on 23/May/06
Where can I find old pictures of Roger Moore and Sean Connery? Those pictures must be when both were young.
I have never seen them and I want to know of Gotxo is right because he begins to sound like a Banned guy ones which his name i can't remember but, very know around here for his wild guesses & explanations.
Viper652 said on 22/May/06
I think Moore was 184cm peak height, and Connery 187cm.
Glenn said on 22/May/06
I SPEAK the TRUTH.I never said 5-10 on CHAN.5-9 max.your words and guesses are worthless over 40 and no life.Moore was at least 6ft.5 when I saw him in early 1991.
Gotxo said on 22/May/06
Almost 40:
Don't speak nonsense nobody walks in the street barefooted, nor Glenn or Frank are perfect, but day make darn good guesses most of times, Glenn tends to round up a bit and Frank's trend is to round down. But they are sincere and say what they saw and lifts normally cause suspicion.
5'11" is not small, neither tall, that's my height and is not tall even in Spain.
Your comments start to sound like a Banned guy ones which his name i can't remember but, very know around here for his wild guesses & explanations.

Stop that friend, we are not even sure if Connery was 189 or 187cm, but the fact is he had 3-4cm on Moore, making him 6'1" at best.
Almost 40 and still watching wrestling said on 22/May/06
Glenn thinks everybody is tall. He thinks Jackie chan is 5-10 for crying out loud. Moore is a tall guy, 5-10 or 5-11 is not short considering the average height for western male is 5-9. He's probably a tad over 6 feet with shoes and certainly over 6-1 with lifts. When Glenn met him and thought he was 185, which is about 6-1, was Moore walking around barefooted?? I certainly hope that James Bond will have more class than that. Take away shoes (and lifts?), and Moore is a tall man at 5-10, 5-11ish.
Gotxo said on 21/May/06
I respect your ideas, but i won't agree on 6'2" for him, is too much.
I recognize he can look easily that, but not in reality be it.
Our most productive sighters are Glenn and Frank2, Glenn has the best eye of the two, but Frank is a honest man, he can be wrong of course, but if he says he has meet him and was near his height (well i still resist to see him under 182cm) i take it as reference (as a range, not as fact).

And yeah he is a big guy, but he was always shorter than Connery i can belive for him 184cm to six one tops as peak height. I allready know i could be wrong, but otherwise would sincerly surprise me.

Some people think i'm downgrading him, downgrading when i say he was 6'to6'1" LMAO. Some people is starting to loss sense of reality.
My best guess is that he was never as tall as Connery, and the later has a 3-4cm on him. That's all.
Mario said on 21/May/06
A couple of months ago I saw him on TV at the Chronicles or narnia premiere and He was easy one the tallest guy's. A 5 ft 11 would be in most cases a little taller than the avarage person. When I see Moore in recent Pictures, movies etc. he is just much taller than the avarage person.

Gotxo, you have said numerious times that he is considerable shorter than Connery, but the only 'good' pics that I have seen of those two legends are of 90s, wich don't say nothing about there peak height. There is picture of Moore and Caine of the 70s in wich Moore is an half-inch shorter. We don't see there footwear but let's assume that they similiar footwear.

Also Tubbs showed a picture of Moore (in his 20s) with a 6 ft 6 actor sometime ago, in which moore looks easy 6 ft 2.
Tubbs said on 21/May/06
Rog has been on tv a couple of times recently, and he still looks a big guy, he was just sligthly shorter than Paul O Grady a couple of weeks ago on his show, and O grady was wearing 2.5 inch dance shoes, and he looked only an inch shorter than Richard E Grant in comparison to others on the Prince's trust show yesterday. This talk of 5'10, 5'11 is surely a joke. I always thought he was down in the 5'11 range until I saw these 6'2" comments, and then I notice he really does look a big guy, still atleast 184cm today, maybe even 185.
Mario said on 21/May/06
The 5 ft 10/ 11 comments have come back....
To me he looks at least 184cm now. He is taller than 180cm guys and he looks a bit shorter than 6 ft 2 and sometimes 6 ft 1 guys.

Or is Dalton 183 cm . XD
Gotxo said on 19/May/06
Almost 40.
I'm with Piwo, he was on the 6' mark maybe a bit over, 6'1" tops, never in hell 6'2".
Again, a 176cm described him as tall, my ex-gf is 175cm and never described me as tall being 5'11", don't buy your arguments. He's a large man (not as much as Connery but large) Not incredible tall but oversized, remembers to me a friend who being 6'1" has a 6'7" armspan (mine is 6'2" and still big for mi size, so compare).He has large hands y bones.
And as for the spying aptitude, yes, both Connery and Moore are tall enough to pass inadverted, thus making a tail on a suspect difficult. But as an article explained some of the best Mi5 agents are over 6', but over that feature is his appearance wich would detach they from the crowd.
Anyway it's just fiction, not reality, it only had to work on the screen, wich one cares for verosimilitude in a Bond film?
He's a tall man, i think you're clueless with this one.
Almost 40 and no girlfriend said on 19/May/06
I can give Moore 5-11, but not 6 feet or over. He's just not a tall man, but a slightly above average sized man, which is how James Bond is supposed to be. Even Sean Connery is a little bit oversized for Bond. At 6-1 he will attract too much attention and his agility/mobility is probably compromised at that height.
Gotxo said on 18/May/06
Sorry, i mean *boost instead boots, "2 cm taller" instead "2 taller".
I must ask perdon for the worst typping in world, won't give feeble excuses.
Gotxo said on 18/May/06
Almost 40 and no girlfriend:
Frank2 has spotted Moore recently, and he's still on the 5'11" mark or so, but in his youth he was never smaller than 6', probably 6'1" but no more.
In 1990 an not yet miss spain (who is 176cm) met him and remarked 2 things in his appearance:very good looking and tall. I don't see a very tall woman describing a 2 taller than her man as tall. He also is a man with big shoulders and hands for his size, that normally reveals a height boots during teens years.
Not a very common feature among, medium or small people.
piwo81 said on 18/May/06
He was the same height as Christopher Walken (or maybe even 1cm shorter) in "A View to a Kill" from 1985. Moore was then 58 years old and Walken,42 then, is said to be 184cm. Although I am a big fan of sir Roger, I can't believe he has ever been 6'2". He was 184cm in prime in my opinion. However, in "the Saint" he really looks taller than in other movies.
Almost 40 and no girlfriend said on 18/May/06
Moore is 5-10, about 6 feet with dress shoes on. He's not 6 feet barefooted. He's a slighted above average sized man. Connery is taller, about 6-1 legit.
Gotxo said on 15/May/06
the 187cm listing for him when young is too much. He could look that, but is pure image, he was never as tall as Connery.
I think he was 6'1" and that's pretty tall for a man born in 1927.

Editor Rob
I've seen some Saint repeats recently...I think he could look a strong 6ft 1er
Gonzalo said on 4/May/06
I think he was 6`1 at his peak. He was a couple of inches shorter than Gregory Peck in Sea Wolves.
Tim said on 3/May/06
When I met Roger Moore in Quebec City (Canada) on Feb. 25, he told us that as a young actor he stood 6 ft 1. I stood next to him and we both had flat shoes and he was about an inch shorter than me who stands 6 ft 0.5.
Frank2 said on 26/Apr/06
In fairness to Moore, I believe he could have been close to 6'1" when he was young, but dropped down by at least two inches by the time I saw him.
Lone said on 26/Apr/06
thanks frank, your photos, particularly of moore and garner, show that he's 5-10, barefooted, max. perhaps close to or right at 6 feet with shoes on.
Frank2 said on 26/Apr/06
Next time I'll publish a negative. In fact here's one: Click Here
How's that?
Picture said on 26/Apr/06
Why haven't you taken a good picture of macnee and Moore? You always take pictures who are negative. Looks for good pictures for god sake.
This guy was at least 6 ft 1 at his peak and he looks it currently.

Moore looks by the way three inches taller than Niven most of the film.
Viper652 said on 25/Apr/06
Most of the picture evidence suggests that Moore was at the very least 6-0, and possibly 6-1. I find it hard to beleive he actually wore lifts to get up to that height, since they only hired actors 6-0 or up barefoot to play Bond.
Glenn said on 25/Apr/06
Moore was 6-1 minimum in his prime.
Gotxo said on 24/Apr/06
Nope, he isn't, read my previos post, Esther Arroyou (miss Spain 1990) was measured at 176cm and ran into Moore when she was a shop asistant various years before. She described him as tall and very good looking.
Could a woman describe a man as tall being only 2cm than her? I doubt it.
Anyway he was tall, pay atention to his comparatively larger hands (not as big as Connery's ones for his size, thought Connery was both tall & huge), he's a large guy.
To end with Frank meet him recently and he still is at least 5'11", i give him a very minimum of 6ft (or a shade more) when young, and if over not much more than 6'1".
Lone said on 24/Apr/06
what did i tell you? moore is 5-10, maybe 6 feet at his prime with lifts, barefooted, next to a wall, 5-10, no mmore.
Frank2 said on 22/Apr/06
Here's a somewhat recent shot of Moore with Tony Cutis: Click Here
Curtis is now about 5'8".
Anonymous said on 22/Apr/06
he was taller than patrick macnee in a view to a kill by a couple of inches. frank 2, you mentioned on the tyrone power page that john carradine was 5'11 1/2", he was in the howling with macnee and they looked similar in height in a few scenes. going by this would put moore at about 6'1"
Gotxo said on 22/Apr/06
True viper, no less than 6' for him, he was described as tall by a 176cm spanish woman who ran into him in the first '90s (i know her size because later she became miss spain).
Though the argument of the cut height for bond being valid in the past it is no loner, as EON has hired a guy under 6'.

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.