How tall was Roger Moore

Roger Moore's Height

6ft 1.25in (186.1 cm)

English actor, best remembered for playing James Bond and for films such as The Wild Geese, The Cannonball Run, Escape to Athena, The Last Time I Saw Paris, The Man Who Haunted Himself and The Sea Wolves. On TV he made a name for himself playing Simon Templar in TV series The Saint. His CV lists him as standing 6ft 2 inches tall.
Six Foot the morning. - Indiana Evening Gazette, 1967
I always played heroes because I'm Six Foot One and a Half. - James Bond Bafta Tribute, 2002
Sir Roger told me that when he first went to acting school he had a teacher who asked him, "How tall are you?". "Six foot one," he replied. "So now stand as though you are 6ft 1in," the teacher said. Roger did - and from that day started getting more work. - Paul McKenna

How tall is Roger Moore
By Allan warren [CC-BY-SA-3.0, via Wikimedia Commons]

You May Be Interested

Height of Sean Connery
Sean Connery
6ft 2in (188 cm)
Height of Pierce Brosnan
Pierce Brosnan
6ft 0.75in (185 cm)
Height of Daniel Craig
Daniel Craig
5ft 10.25in (178 cm)
Height of Richard Kiel
Richard Kiel
7ft 1.5in (217 cm)

Add a Comment 250 comments

Average Guess (72 Votes)
6ft 1.24in (186cm)
Arch Stanton said on 11/Sep/17
My aunt died this morning, my dad's eldest sister. She was a similar age to Roger Moore, 90. This really isn't a good year is it!
Editor Rob: sorry to hear.
Bugsy said on 8/Sep/17
Arch Stanton: I was mainly comparing Dalton and Moore (hence the "kind of"). All around a bigger and 'bulkier' guy for the lack of a better word. It is much more notable in The Living Daylights, he seemed to have lost some weight for Licence To Kill.

On the subject of height, you can find many pictures of Dalton, Moore and Brosnan together (probably in 95). Dalton is consistently and very clearly taller than the other two in every single photo. If the estimates are based on Dalton having been 187-188 cm, that places both Brosnan and Moore somewhere in the 180-184 range. We know Moore was the oldest of them and probably had lost height, but if you want to go there, don't forget Dalton is also notably older than Brosnan and was still 5 cm taller than him.

There is no way Moore or Brosnan were EVER near Dalton's height, at any age, peak height or not. I still say my initial guess of 6'0.25" for Moore (as a young man) stands its ground.
James said on 5/Sep/17
Connery was 52 in "Never Say Never Again" and had put on quite a bit of weight since the 1960s.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Sep/17
Connery struggled with 6ft2 next to Pat Roach
James B said on 30/Aug/17
Pat Roach made Connery look small
movieguy said on 27/Aug/17
Yeah looking at the early Connery films he is surprisingly lean. People in those days were generally thinner than today though. There were no steroids and far fewer overweight people in general. Desmond Llewellyn was obviously a lot older by the point of the Dalton/Brosnan films and much frailer looking and smaller all round than he'd been at the time of the earlier Bond films.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Aug/17
Connery was the burliest of the Bonds especially in Diamonds Are Forever...
Arch Stanton said on 24/Aug/17
Dalton big?? Don't agree, he was always slender build. Connery was more muscular and bigger of frame but still relatively slender in the 60s.
Bugsy said on 23/Aug/17
One more odd thing is that BOTH Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan looked clearly (meaning more than an inch) taller than Desmond Llewellyn, but Moore looked to be around the same height or just barely taller. The significance of this is that Dalton is supposed to have been close or equal to 6'2" and Brosnan some measure shorter than Dalton. The comparison with Dalton being slightly more relevant I suppose, since not that much time had passed between his and Moore's Bonds.

Also compare the build of Dalton vs. Moore. Dalton looked like a BIG guy, not just a tall guy. Kind of like Connery. That is actually what I meant earlier when I referred to Moore as being 'slim' or 'slender'. I did NOT mean he looked starved or underweight. I'll also repeat that being slim is very 'ordinary'. If your natural build is slim, there's no way out of it except to build a LOT of muscle (which Moore did not have) or appear to be overweight (which Moore did not do). I think the producers requirement for him to lose weight for Live and let die was precisely designed so that he would appear tall, not stubby, on screen. They succeeded.
James said on 19/Aug/17
Moore was six foot without the lifts he wore on TV and in films. He was the shortest Bond until Craig.
Rising - 174 cm said on 16/Aug/17
This is probably most likely and explains why Burt Reynolds(obviously in elevator boots) looked a bit taller than Roger at the end of Cannonball Run. Roger must have not lost much height by his late 60s, though, because he still looked almost as tall as Pierce Brosnan and was still looking like a tall guy near 6'1" next to Jean-Claude Van Damme and James Remar in The Quest.
Arch Stanton said on 15/Aug/17
Finally, spot on now I think.
movieguy said on 14/Aug/17
The 6'1.5'' quote is made when he stands next to Michael Parkinson who is given as 5'10'' on this site. The funny thing is if you take a look at it they look more or less the same height. Pierce Brosnan looks clearly taller than Parkinson at the same event. To contradict this there is the clip where Moore presents at the Oscars with 6'2'' Michael Caine and 6'2'' Sean Connery. Moore is perhaps slightly shorter but only just, does look 6'1'' in this clip. Maybe Moore had lost height by the time of the later clip. I do think Moore was a genuine 6ft plus in his prime but did lose an inch or two with age.
@6'1.5 said on 13/Aug/17
Rob, what do you think is the best option for Roger Moore at his peak?
A) 185.5-187.5 cm
B) 186-188 cm
C) 186.5-188.5 cm
Editor Rob: I think he was quite honest in saying first thing in the morning he was near 6ft's just, maybe he shrank to 6ft 1 flat evening range.
berta said on 12/Aug/17
good update this may well have been closer to his real height probably was somewhere in the 186 range
movieguy said on 11/Aug/17
Gyles Brandreth who knew him well describes Moore as 6'1'' in an obituary column in the Telegraph.
Bugsy said on 9/Aug/17
Rory: I did not concede anything, since I did not at any point claim anything like that. A direct quote from my earlier comment is "perhaps an inch, maybe a little less". Please learn some reading comprehension.

By your logic, the footwear and camera angles could just as well have been favoring Moore, not Lonsdale. And then there's the question of Lonsdale's height, him being 6'1" is in itself only an assumption here. Anyway, I guess I'm going to leave this pointless discussion here, because you seem to have some sort of fixation with Moore being a certain height and you're not even open to looking at it objectively.
Prayer said on 9/Aug/17
Actually Moore could have been "only" 5'11 or 180 cm. Look at him with Geoffrey Keen who was listed as 5'5 or 165 cm. Moore looks barely 6 inches taller than Keen and Keen was a old man by that far. 6'1 and 6'2 is ridiculous.
Jug said on 8/Aug/17
Moore was 6'1 at peak. A guy who is 6'1 will say that he is 6'2. He was 4 inches shorter than Christopher Lee in The Man With the Golden Gun. He had broad shoulders and a big chest and sometimes looked quite big. Note that he and Connery look the same amount taller than Lois Maxwell. Also compare with Bernard Lee and Desmond Llewelyn. At 58 he was still taller than Christopher Walken.
Rory said on 7/Aug/17
@Bugsy : Well that's funny because you've gone from saying he was an inch shorter than Lonsdale to now conceding they were practically the same and also retracting that he was "slender" to now saying he was ordinary. There was no visible difference between them, but it's silly to say he looked 6ft1 there and not 6ft1.25 because a quarter inch can be accounted for by anything from a difference in footwear,camera angle etc even an inch difference could be distorted by such variables. Age too, Moore was 51 during filming, Lonsdale was 47 during filming..Rob has said men on average lose their first mm at age 47-48 so it's possible in the film Lonsdale had lost nothing and Moore had been losing a tiny bit for the last 4 years. I still think Moores build made him look shorter than he was, quite short legs and a long torso.
Bugsy said on 6/Aug/17
Indeed, an ORDINARY build. Not a big guy, nor especially thin. Not especially tall either.

Rory, even after I clarified it you seemed to miss one point I was making. EVEN IF he was the same height as Lonsdale, that would only have made him 6'1" (Lonsdale's listing), not 6'1.25" as he's currently listed.

I don't know how recently you saw Moonraker but I saw it less than a week ago. They were indeed "eye to eye" (standing face to face close to each other), and Moore was the shorter one out of the two. Not by much, but Moore having been taller is out of the question.
Rory said on 5/Aug/17
@Bugsy : Having narrow shoulders though is nothing to do with muscle, its to do with the width of your shoulders which is made from bone. I repeat, he wasn't narrow shouldered. Someone like Damian Lewis I'd say was narrow shouldered, not Roger Moore. I wouldn't even say he was particularly thin really, I'd say he had quite an ordinary build. No but the point is he wasn't shorter than Lonsdale at all ! I watched Moonraker recently and thought both men were eye to eye, not once did I detect Lonsdale was taller, I've no idea how you you concluded that he every scene they were in together they were inseparable in height. Big heeled shoes for men were all the rage in the 1970s, a good chunk of men would have been wearing them.
Bugsy said on 5/Aug/17
Rory: I said "comparatively" narrow shoulders. He did not have a broad chest, he was not very muscular in general (not a bodybuilder). Even that b&w photo above on this site shows that. Does that look like a big, bulky guy to you? He just simply had a smaller (thinner) frame. That's what some people have. I know a guy who is 2 inches taller than me but weighs 40 lbs less. I also know a guy who is exactly my height and weighs 65 lbs less. People are built different.

Maybe he wasn't exactly "an inch" shorter than Michael Lonsdale, who cares. What I said was that Moore was VISIBLY shorter, definitely not the taller one out of the two. Lonsdale btw is listed as 6'1.0".

One more thing I noticed the other day was that (again, in the 70's Bonds) Moore's dress shoes tended to have quite a large looking heel. Large enough for me to clearly notice it and think "hmm, those shoes look bigger than regular". Maybe it was to make sure he would look tall next to the leading women in heels.
Richard said on 3/Aug/17
Moore was far too old to play Bond. He never even looked six foot, let alone 6'1".
Rory said on 2/Aug/17
@Bugsy In my view you're wrong on all accounts. He wasn't narrow shouldered,he didn't have long legs,he wasn't an inch shorter than Lonsdale they were about the same and he wasn't as low as 6'0.25.
Ali said on 1/Aug/17
Rob, Roger Moore was clearly shorter than Connery and Lazenby by about 2 inches or so. Roger Moore
is overall a smaller guy compared to Connery and Lazenby.

5'11 max.
Bugsy said on 1/Aug/17
Just to be clear about this on my part: I don't have any kind of an agenda against Moore. In fact, he was always my favorite Bond actor regardless of his age or whatever.

About his build, I read the Bond producers told him to lose weight (presumably in the early 70's). He was definitely not a BIG guy, he just wasn't. He was slender with comparatively narrow shoulders (and long legs). So again, the perfect example of someone who appears on screen to be taller than in reality.

I just saw Moonraker, Moore was visibly shorter than Michael Lonsdale by perhaps an inch, maybe a little less.

I can definitely believe Moore WAS genuinely (didn't drop under the mark even after a full day on his feet) 6 ft and again, a genuinely 6 ft guy is TALL so I don't even see a problem here. The heights listed here are low/afternoon heights so my guess is still at 6'0.25".
Mister lennon said on 1/Aug/17
He was 6'1 when he played bond in the 70s.
Prayer said on 31/Jul/17
6'2 is ridiculous. He wasn't no more than 6 ft when played Bond. Yes he was very slim and looked taller than he was.
Mario said on 31/Jul/17
@Rory, true, but he did later mention 6 ft 1.5 without mentioning the morning thing, which clarifies a lot.

He might have lost something during his Bond days though.

I'm not sure he was still his claimed 6 ft 1.5 by the time Octopussy or view to a kill came out.
James said on 31/Jul/17
Moore never even looked 6'1", let alone 6'2".

They would never cast an old man as Bond today.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Jul/17
In The Saint could pass for 6ft2
Rory said on 29/Jul/17
The thing is 6ft 2 in the morning can be quite an ambiguous claim. It could mean he meant 6ft 2 straight out of bed meaning he'd be a 6ft1.25 guy, or it could mean he measured 6ft2 in the morning 3 hrs out of bed meaning he'd be a 6ft1.75 guy, it could mean he measured around 6ft2(like 6'1.75 or 6'2.25) at some point in the morning. It's very unclear.
Mister lennon said on 28/Jul/17
Moore always looked 6'1 exept in his 60s, when he looked a strong 6.
Mario said on 28/Jul/17
If Roger Moore says he's 6 ft 2 in the morning or 6 ft 1.5, I believe he's. I mean, he seemed like an humble guy, he even did make fun of his acting. It doesn't make sense to me why he would add an extra 0.25 inch to him.
James said on 27/Jul/17
Moore only weighed 160 lbs so he was quite thin.
Rory said on 27/Jul/17
I actually think his build made him look shorter than he was. He had a big,long torso and quite short skinny legs. Quite unusual actually. At times because of his build I thought he could seem much shorter than 186cm but then when stood next to others you'd see he clearly was that range.
James said on 27/Jul/17
Moore never looked 6'1" in anything. His thin build made him appear taller. Since he wore a hairpiece in "The Saint" and as Bond he probably wore lifts as well.

My grandfather once met Moore and Dorothy Squires at a racetrack and he said Moore was no taller than six foot.
Bugsy said on 26/Jul/17
Moore had the build that made him appear taller on screen. He was quite slim. I don't think he was over 6'1". Never looked THAT tall.

If you're genuinely 6 ft, you are TALL. Doubly so in the old days because the average height was lower.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Jul/17
188.4cm out of bed
Mister lennon said on 26/Jul/17
He was 6'1 peak. He always looked it.
He was only 6 in his late 50s and 60s.
James said on 25/Jul/17
Moore never looked any taller than six foot. I don't know why they cast a 50-year-old as Bond.
Mark(5'9.5") said on 24/Jul/17
Okay, I think the downgrade to 6'1" is extreme.

This listing is fine, but I would have kept the original listing.
even said on 24/Jul/17
a strong legitimate 6 foot 1 .
James said on 20/Jul/17
He should be downgraded to 6'1". Moore was the shortest Bond until Craig.
Mark(5'9.5 said on 19/Jul/17
Still shock of the downgrade.
Richard said on 15/Jul/17
Moore never looked his stated height. I'm surprised they cast him as Bond when he was already well into middle age.
James said on 12/Jul/17
Actually there were many women who did not find Moore attractive. Don't forget he was a very heavy cigarette smoker until he was 45, and overused the sun which led to his long battle with skin cancer.
James B said on 11/Jul/17
There would only be a minority of women who wouldn't find roger Moore handsome (no homo)
MJKoP said on 11/Jul/17
James said on 3/Jul/17
He famously wore lifts and a hairpiece as James Bond.

So did Connery...and Brosnan(at least in his last two Bond films, as he himself admitted). Not sure about Lazenby or Dalton.
Mark(5'9.5") said on 11/Jul/17
Interesting, i still wouldn't go lower than 186 cm.

Rob, if Roger Moore is downgraded to 6'1.25", where would that leave a Peak Christopher Lee?
James said on 3/Jul/17
He famously wore lifts and a hairpiece as James Bond.
Rory said on 3/Jul/17
Yh I think a strong 6ft 1 in his Saint days looks very fair. A weak 6ft 1 by his last Bond outing.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Jul/17
Interesting one Rob. At his low maybe
Richard said on 30/Jun/17
At six foot Moore was the shortest Bond until Craig. He was also far too old to play 007.
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
Willes188 said on 27/May/17
Definitely the most polite and down to earth Bond actor, i have respect for all of them, but both Connery and Brosnan is said by many to have quite a temperament
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.
Leo2001 said on 25/May/17
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.
Willes188 said on 23/May/17
Rest In Peace 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.
Adijos said on 23/May/17
Rip [*]
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 B said on 5/May/17
6'1.5 seems like a stretch for his peak in my opinion

6'1 flat seems dead on perfect for his peak. Never could see either what was so great about his 'looks' (no homo)
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.
Cq: said on 2/May/17
Alex mahones picture of patrick duffy n roger moore prove that duffy at this picture was 2 inches taller than moore who would look a bit taller if his head was straight. Duffy was 6 2 peak n is probably 6 1 here being younger than moore. Moore possibly around 5 11 or 11.5 now shrunk around 2 inches below his peak. In octupussy days he was around 2 inches less by eye level comparison from both kabir bedi n vijay the tennis player who acted as his auto rickshaw driver who were both solid 6 3.
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.
AlexMahone said on 8/Dec/16
Mike Read was shamed into doing this statment. He was fired as Roger Moore's underwater stunt double in The Saint after drawing attention to Moore's thinning hair. That's the story and nothing more. If you can prove the opposite please write to Sir Roger's Facebook page. This is celebheights and not your personal vendetta's page against Moore.

Wait...Timothy Dalton said to me that you wore lifts because you are only 4'11". Actually, this is not the actor Timothy Dalton. My proofs is axiomatical, right? Or not. This is a rumour. Same as your's.
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.
AlexMahone said on 2/Sep/16
Rob' why post you Tom/James/Alex troll comments? This guy write again and again the same bull****.

James, have you any proof that Moore was a serious lift wearer? I said proof and not your idiot comments.
Editor Rob: yeah I think James should reel in some of the comments and stick to one name.
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.
johnp said on 19/Jul/16
I was watching the Bond film Living Daylights with Timothy Dalton. Decided to look him up Dalton on IMDb and found this about the Dalton the Bond actors.
According to the James Bond film tailors in London, at 6' 2" he is the tallest of all the Bond actors. The tailors who have fitted and measured each of the 5 Bonds over the years claim the following heights for each of the other Bond actors: Sean Connery 6' 1 1/2" without shoes, George Lazenby 6' 1 1/2" without shoes, Roger Moore 6' 1" without shoes and Pierce Brosnan 6' 1" without shoes.
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...
Z187 said on 25/May/16
@James .....Moore looked more youthful in LALD than Connery in YOLT ... Connerys looks made him look nearly 10 years older than he actually was... ..... As for height their height I'd peg Moore at 186cm and Connery at 187cm at their barefoot peaks @ midday.... Thus, 188 and 189 respectively in shoes.. Neither of them just never really look huge enough next to the female characters to be the 1.9m or taller (which they would be in shoes) if they were any taller that that those figures barefoot... Moore actually looks taller on screen, especially in the persuaders.. I've have some pictures with the bond waxworks and there is nothing really between the first 5 bonds...I know Some people rave about Connery being the tallest for some reason but... I think, if you see photos of dalton/ brosnan/ Moore/ and then Connery and Moore.. Or brosnan/ Connery ...It's safe to say dalton would Have been the tallest.... And if that's not enough, the the film tailors site him as the tallest (according to his IMDb) ... :) solved
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

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

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

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