How tall is Tom Selleck

Tom Selleck's Height

6ft 3 (190.5 cm)

Peak height was 6ft 4 (193 cm)
American actor best known for starring in TV series Magnum PI and Blue Bloods. In movies he has appeared in Three Men and a Baby, Quigley Down Under, High Road to China and Her Alibi. He said in the NY Times, "I'm 6'4". In a 1983 Time magazine article it also mentioned his peak weight: "6-ft. 4-in, 200-lb. star". He was also once quoted saying 6ft 3.5.
It had been a problem for me being taken seriously. I'm 6-foot-4 and I came in during the era of leading men like Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino...anybody in the old leading man mold was all of a sudden not acceptable. That was the same reason I didn't do much TV. They said I was too tall or that I conflicted with the hero.
-- 1980
I never tried to project a macho image. In fact, I'm 6 feet, 4 inches tall. I've been taller than most people most of my adult life. I see no reason to run around trying to intimidate people with that. I've always kind of gone the other way.
-- 1989

How tall is Tom Selleck
Tom with Bridget Moynahan
Photos by PR Photos
Dad's my height; Mom's 5-foot-7, My brother Bob, 19 months older, and my kid brother Dan, 10 years younger, are both 6-foot-6½ My sister Marti, who's eight years younger, is 5-foot-9...Being tall is no problem when it's your show. There are ways to get around the differences in height. It's a problem, though, on someone else's show. They don't want anyone to tower over the leading man...
- 1980
At 6ft 3in and more at home outdoors than inside, I was never going to be an ideal romantic lead but put me in a flowery shirt, give me a gun now and then send me out in Hawaii to catch a few criminals and I am your man.
Sunday Post 2019

You May Be Interested

Height of David Hasselhoff
David Hasselhoff
6ft 4 (193 cm)
Height of Ted Danson
Ted Danson
6ft 2 (188 cm)
Height of Burt Reynolds
Burt Reynolds
5ft 11 (180 cm)
Height of Steve Guttenberg
Steve Guttenberg
5ft 10 (178 cm)

Add a Comment662 comments

Average Guess (126 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.9in (192.8cm)
Current: 6ft 2.96in (190.4cm)
Mickie said on 28/Nov/23
I'd say peak 6'3.5" or maybe something like 6'3 5/8" or so who knows... Like, clearly over 6'3" but not the full 6'4".
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Aug/23
He did look 6ft4 next to James Garner in Rockford Files and on Magnum....his peak is acceptable but as berta points out, he more likely was a guy who dropped a bit below that mark in the evening rather than maintained it...
Sandy Cowell said on 6/Apr/23
The guys who starred in Three Men and a Baby weren’t exactly mini in size! 😂😂😂

6ft4 peak and 6ft3 now.
Gerald S said on 5/Apr/23
Enough names for a Blue Bloods tag, Rob?
berta said on 2/Jan/23
he is big boned and big head. that could make him seem 192 peak but beside others he really did look 193. We cant just pretend that he and conan obrien stood back to back and everyone said Tom was taller. Ofcoure shoes and stuff like one guy had wresting in a chair before could be the reason. But conan could not have been the taller one. he looked like a 6´4 guy should look. Cleartl had a couple cm on ted danson that peaked at 189,5 ish. Today he is probably a very legit 6´3 guy. When people get over 70 years old they often look shorter than they are. My uncle is 70 and can look 1 cm shorter now but got measured at the doctor and was still at peak ( maybe it was early in the day and he rally had shrunk). My mother can look 173 alot these day (175 peak) But when i measured here she was couple mm under 175 in the afternoon. She is 68.
Sinclair said on 21/Sep/22
Most probably 6’3” range by Boston Legal.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Sep/22
James, they probably would’ve had to put Roach in some boots to make the size difference more noticeable as there probably wasn’t even an inch between him and Selleck. Roach admitted to only being 6ft4½. Selleck would have made a good Indiana though....
James.B 172cm said on 31/Jul/22
Would have been interesting to see Tom up against Pat Roach if he played Indiana Jones
Allie said on 17/Jul/22
I heard that Tom was rumoured to have auditioned/turned down the role of Han Solo, and scheduling/studio conflicts prevented him from playing Indiana Jones, as well as rumours of him being a top choice to play Arnold's role in The Terminator.

I can't imagine anyone else in those roles, and I don't know if Tom would've "fit" in the roles, but it would've been an interesting what-if. Especially comparing him to the heights of someone of the cast members!

Anyways, 6'3 now and 6'4ish at his peak.
Canson said on 3/Jul/22
@Berta: I was looking at a pic of a friend of mine (that I played ball with) and a pic of Selleck from Magnum PI the other day and they look the same height. My old teammate was about 6’3 1/2” and that should be his low (he claims 6’4”). Selleck would probably measure that at a low or maybe a hair over so lunchtime 6’3.75 May be fair. Conan would be similar imho
berta said on 1/Jul/22
i dont undertand how seleck did clearly edge out conan o brien many years ago. selleck could many times seem about 192,5 but beside others he reallly was 6´4
Tallerornot said on 20/Jun/22
Rob, Tom Selleck is always clearly taller than Conan. In fact he hunches slightly when meeting Conan and still is taller. Very likely Selleck was a 6'5 guy and downgraded himself heightwise. It's not good as lead man in Hollywood to be 6'5.

Look at the pictures of the late princess Diana with Selleck and compare it to her dancing with Clint Eastwood. Tom is at least 3 inches taller. Sure Eastwood has lost about an inch during that time, , but he was still about 6'2. Selleck was several inches taller.
Sinclair said on 28/May/22
Rob, could you please add Roger E. Mosley, who played T.C. on Magnum P.I.? 6’1”?

w/Selleck Click Here
w/Selleck, Manetti & Hillerman Click Here
wSelleck & Manetti Click Here
w/Selleck Click Here
w/Selleck, Manetti & Hillerman Click Here
w/Selleck & Manetti Click Here

You’ve got Magnum, Higgins and Rick but no T.C...
Editor Rob
Yes, he's due a page.
Sinclair said on 26/May/22
There’s a scene in Magnum P.I. where Selleck’s character is reading the memoirs of John Hillerman’s character (5’6” range), who writes that he had attained the height of six feet by a certain young age. On reading this, Selleck’s character walks over to him; towering him, gives a military posture and says undeceived: “Six feet? I’m 6’4”?” And by Selleck acting so often with 5’6” Hillerman, it’s no wonder I never questioned it.
5'7 and a bit said on 12/May/22
@Kuffs78, maybe you didn't read the site's name correctly but it's called 'celebheights.'
Of course people who have an interest in height are going to come on and discuss it. Some of us come here when were bored and having a break from our busy lives, not all of us 'obsess' over it.
For example, I'm not interested in football but I don't purposely drag myself to a football match in order to be a condescending 'know it all' to the guys who are, do I?
Kuffs78 said on 5/May/22
I’m sorry but these comments are laughable. You’re obsessing over a grown man’s height, whether he’s 6.4” or 3’5”, why does it matter how tall he is?? You’ve also clearly had no experience when it comes to photographing famous people or the movie business in general. You’re clewly not smart enough to understand that in movie, like Three Men and A Baby, where Selleck, Danson and Gutenberg are all in the same shot, props may have been used to increase 5’10” Guttenberg’s height so that he is seen to be closer to the other guys who are over six foot. Likewise with the picture of Tom Selleck and Patrick Swayze. You have no idea what kind of footwear Swayze was wearing, or if Swayze was standing on a higher step than Tom. Truly laughable how you’re obsessing over this.
viper said on 19/Apr/22
Danson could be just 6-2.25 peak

Selleck at 6-3.5
viper said on 19/Apr/22
I don't think he looked quite as tall as Hasselhoff from a physical perspective in the 80s.

I believe Selleck as a flat 6-4 originally and Hasselhoff a solid one. Hoff could look closer to 6-5 at times which Selleck never did
Jtm said on 19/Apr/22
I don’t get why there are suddenly comments that he was inch or less taller than Ted danson. He was a good 1.5-2 taller than danson in my eyes. No way was selleck 6’3.5 and danson 6’3 peak. I think danson was really 6’2 flat and selleck 6’3.5-6’3.75 peak
slothee said on 19/Apr/22
At his peak, 6’ 4 3/8”, 194cm first thing out of bed and 6’ 3 1/2”, 191.5-192cm before bed. Today, 6’ 3 3/8”, 191.5cm first thing in the morning and 6’ 2 5/8-3/4”, 189.5-190cm before bed. His older claim of 6’4” and newer one of 6’3” make sense. Most honest men with those measurements would simply round to 6’4”, and 6’3”. His one claim of 6’3.5” (at his peak) makes me think he really did measure that at his low. I’d personally list his peak as 6’ 3 3/4”, 192.4cm and his current the same at roughly 6’ 3”, 190.5cm.

I should also mention that with Ted Danson (weak 6’3”, 6’2 1/2-3/4”), Selleck looks not even an inch taller.
Canson said on 18/Apr/22
He was very thin with long proportions. I buy his peak claim of 6’3.5” however
Allie said on 17/Apr/22
I think he looked 6'4-ish at his peak and now 6'3-ish in his 70s.

I heard he had a shot at playing Indiana Jones instead of Harrison Ford, but obligations for Magnum P.I. prevented him from doing it. He also had a chance to play David Hasselhoff's role in Baywatch but he turned that down.
5'7 and a bit said on 16/Apr/22
I think a weak 6'4, 6'3 3/4 (192.4cm) peak and 6'2 3/4 (190cm) now.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Jan/22
Still looks very tall on Blue Bloods
Rising174cm said on 19/Dec/21
@Canson: Yeah, a legit 6'3.5" with his frame could certainly give that impression. Also, he sometimes wore boots that could give near 1.5" in the 90s and that would certainly make a legit 6'3.5" appear at least 6'4".

But look at this series of 5 photos with 5'10" Patrick Swayze from 1990: Click Here Even though Selleck is slouching, I just can't see that as a 5'10" man and a 6'4" man.
Canson said on 13/Dec/21
@Rising: what’s funny about Selleck is that in his Magnum PI days he was much thinner and could pull off looking near 6’4 at times. But then again there were no other tall cast members to compare that I can remember. But I do believe 6’3.5” for him or somewhere around the 192 cm mark as his afternoon height as a well proportioned 6’3.5” can give off a 6’4 impression very easily and often. But that goes to show that a lot of the other guys listed 6’4 were actually slightly taller than Selleck or in Conan’s case likely just another “roughly” 192 cm guy like Selleck. But this puts into perspective how tall a guy like Hasselhoff Neeson and Lithgow who are true 6’4” 193cm guys (if anyone is under that mark its Lithgow but he can look it too). If Lithgow was under it was maybe 192.5 imho. And the other two could pull off looking maybe 193.5 at times. But 6’4 is prob fair as I can see All three being close. It further shows with a guy like Goldblum and Haysbert who were probably 193-194 guys and in Haysbert’s case he could’ve been a 6’4.25-.5 guy (don’t quite see a solid 6’4.5 at afternoon height but I could’ve seen something like 6’5 to 6’5 1/8 out of bed and 6’4 1/4-3/8” Or similar to me as a strong 6’4” 6’4.25” guy). Danson was another one who could occasionally (far less often than Selleck) pull off looking 6’3”. Both were thin (Danson is still not a heavy guy but he’s lost height like Selleck has and is probably around 6’2” today like Rob lists him). I agree with you that there was probably an inch between them at their peaks though. Maybe 192 (give or take 2 mm for Selleck since 191.85 is 6’3.5 but chance of being slightly over is a good one for him) and 189-190 range for Danson since 6’2.5 is 189.2. I’d say Selleck had the greater chance of being over the half than Danson but to me there was maybe 1 1/8” at most as that looks about as good an inch as it gets before you get into the 3 cm mark of difference between them
Rising174cm said on 9/Dec/21
I think it's just further proof he was 6'3.5" peak and he doesn't care so he usually rounds his height, but gave the 6'3.5" figure on two occasions 6-7 years apart during the 80s so he must have measured that.

I actually never thought he was as tall as a full 6'4" anyway. And he looked like he was struggling with 6'3" a decade ago in the photo above, tbh. I think he made it into his 60s without shrinking and also maintained a relatively youthful appearance, but began shrinking noticeably around his mid 60s. He's an active guy, but not into heavy weight lifting, which probably helped.
Canson said on 27/Nov/21
@Rising: I didn’t realize that. That’s surprising.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Nov/21
He looks like he’s struggling with 6ft3 today but he may still measure it. Not a solid 6ft4 guy in his prime though
Rising174cm said on 21/Nov/21
@Canson: That's what I thought at first too, but then I realized he's specifically referring to being suited for the Magnum PI role so it makes more sense that he's referring to his height then and rounding down. He first claimed 6'3.5" when he first got the Magnum role and then again when he was transitioning to movies.

He's definitely under 6'3" now, but could still be 6'2.5".
Canson said on 20/Nov/21
@Rising: agreed but not even sure the 6’3 claim was a round down. It may have been a product of him losing height later in life.
Rising174cm said on 19/Nov/21
@Canson: Agreed. The 1980-1981 TV Guide claim said 6'3.5", but the 1987 Houston Chronicle claim said about 6'3.5" which could mean 6'3.6", but there's plenty of evidence he was not taller than that. Also, the 6'3" claim in context references the roles he was suited for and specifically Magnum so it sounds like he's rounding down his peak height. Danson was similar in that he had 6'2", 6'2.5" and 6'3" listings, but was likely 6'2.5", although Danson looked nowhere near as tall with Alan Light as 6'4" Dolph Lundgren did. In comparison, he was at least 2" shorter than Dolph was with Light.

But you can see a series of photos of Selleck and 5'10" Patrick Swayze from 1990 where Selleck with terrible posture winds up looking only 6'1" range. I've also posted plenty of photos of Selleck in the 90s with Edward James Olmos, Paul Newman and Steven Spielberg, and he does not look like he could be a full 6'4" in any of them.

Selleck is a honest guy who must have gotten measured at or "about" 6'3.5" to have claimed it twice 6-7 years apart in the 80s. He usually rounded up to 6'4" as most people do, but now it appears he's rounded down to 6'3" at least once, which just shows his modesty. By 1987, he didn't have to worry about being cast around other stars as he was the lead, and in 2019, he definitely didn't have to worry about this. Nor would taking off half an inch in two random print interviews make any difference for casting when he wound up rounding up to 6'4" in the bios most casting directors saw anyway.
Canson said on 16/Nov/21
@Rising: I’d say max something like 6’3.6 but 6’3.5 is likely. I agree on Danson. 1” shorter than Selleck approximately. I think 6’2.5 and 6’3.5 fit in their primes
Rising174cm said on 14/Nov/21
He confirmed his height as 6'3.5" twice in the 80s 6 or 7 years apart. I don't think he was below that, but the simplest answer is the correct one: Selleck was an honest 6'3.5" who often rounded to 6'4". Watch An Innocent Man and you'll see he never appears 6" taller than 5'10" F. Murray Abraham. His 6'3.5" claim adds up perfectly with Darryl Strawberry's 6'5" claim.

He also had about an inch on 6'2.5" Ted Danson:
Click Here I don't think he had lost anything by 2004, but he wasn't looking taller than 6'3" in full pics with 5'11"-5'11.5" Prince Albert. Back in the 90s, he sometimes wore boots that made him appear a full 6'4". By the time of Blue Bloods, he wouldn't be over 6'3" flat as the photo above shows and nowadays, I'd say he's not taller than 6'2.5". If you want to be generous, you could say something like 6'3 5/8" peak, maybe even 6'3 3/4" at the absolute most, but he was not a full 6'4" as Selleck himself confirmed.
Ian C. said on 8/Nov/21
Selleck, who is now 76,is currently appearing in a series of commercials for a company that sells reverse mortgages. He could have made these commercials by speaking into the camera and revealing only his face, but the commercials show him walking in a full-body shot, and he walks with an arthritic limp. This is actually a nice touch, because people in the market for reverse mortgages are either retired or near it, and would thus identify with Selleck as an old man. Also, would a company that was honest enough to reveal that its pitchman, formerly athletic and vital, was now an old man, lie to you about its products?
Beau Dare said on 2/Nov/21
I once worked with Tom Selleck on Dolly Parton's TV show "Dolly", when I was an actor/ screenwriter in Hollywood. I only met him in passing as he was a guest star, but he was a tall 6'3.5" with great posture and bearing. He is also a very kind, decent human being, who is honest and has old fashioned values (very, very rare in Hollywood. They don't make leading men like him anymore..
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 14/Oct/21
No way a strong 6ft4, that's Neeson/Hoff territory.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Jul/21
Currently, I think Selleck is struggling with 6ft3 while Danson is struggling with 6ft2
Canson said on 3/Jul/21
@AdamS: if just going off Magnum PI, I may see 6’4 because he was thinner back then. But now, I would go 6’3.5 based on how he looks with others such as Danson who was listed 6’2.5” and his own 6’3.5 claim
Anonnymous said on 2/Jul/21
He never struck me as a strong 6'4". 6'3.5" at max, I'd rather give him.
AdamS said on 20/May/21
Is this perhaps a good example of Selleck first slouching and then stretching himself out in the same lineup with Ted Danson and Steve Guttenberg?

Click Here
Click Here
Editor Rob
It is a noticeable change. Sometimes just posture/camera change can do that, but seems a big swing between Danson/Selleck's heights there.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/May/21
If Tom's below 6ft3 now it can't be by more than a small fraction. He's maintained height better than other 70+ guys who are/were 6ft4
Canson said on 18/May/21
@Rampage: Swagger is another guy who wouldn’t be under 6’4”. But he had a better chance of being my height (6’4.25 range). A guy similar to Hoff or Neeson is Kevin Pietersen. Looks straight up 6’4 no less with Rob
Canson said on 18/May/21
@Rampage: Swagger is another guy who wouldn’t be under 6’4”. But he had a better chance of being my height (6’4.25 range).
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/May/21
Canson, he wasn't a guy that held 6ft4 at his low like Hoff, Neeson or yours truly :D
AdamS said on 2/May/21
He also edged out George HW Bush by a fair margin :
Click Here
AdamS said on 2/May/21
Rampage, Hanks did have footwear advantage :
Click Here
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/May/21
Rob, have you ever considered giving Selleck 6ft3½?
Editor Rob
it's not exactly improbable.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/May/21
Hanks looking taller than Candy and Ford!

The angle is a bit weird and I think the more distance can add the illusion of more height. I'd probably give Selleck the edge over Chevy
AdamS said on 28/Apr/21
Another interesting line-up with John Candy, Liotta, Ford, Hanks and Chevy Chase
Click Here
AdamS said on 25/Apr/21
For comparison, here with a woman who goes around posing with famous people :
Click Here
And the same woman with Liam Neeson and Danny Glover in similar pose:
Click Here
Click Here
Rising174cm said on 24/Apr/21
@Canson: Good catch and that further suggests he'd sometimes round a half inch without thinking about it.
Ian C. said on 30/Mar/21
Why did such a handsome man say that he was never going to be "an ideal romantic lead?" Just an odd thing to say. You don't hear beautiful women saying that they can't be romantic leads.

Selleck was in the same class of male good looks as Rock Hudson, who was a romantic lead in at least half his movies. What's the big deal? Al Pacino, Ralph Fiennes and Woody Allen have been romantic leads. Frank Sinatra (small and plain of face) was irresistible to beautiful women in most of his movies.

Look at the picture above of Selleck and Bridget Moynihan. That woman is right out there on the beautiful girl scale, and she and Selleck look like a couple. Although it was just a lucky break for Selleck that Frank Sinatra wasn't around to steal her away.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Mar/21
Canson said on 11/Mar/21
@Rising and Editor Rob: something else I picked up on is that he said his brother is 6’6 1/2 in the quote above. On Conan’s show he said 6’7 when he claimed 6’4” for himself. So his 6’6.5 is consistent enough with his 6’3.5” claims

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here

The two brothers are without a doubt at least 6ft6, the dad I'm gonna guess was 6ft5 range peak and had maybe lost a little by the time these photos were taken? still looks a bit taller than Tom even in old age. The woman holding the child in the first picture I'm guessing is his sister - 5ft9 makes sense for her, she looks quite tall and his mother was probably likely 5ft7 range peak.

Strong gene pool...his dad looks he could have been a movie star himself, handsome bugger
Canson said on 20/Mar/21
@Chaos Control: that would be a good start for his peak height
Chaos Control 6'2.5 said on 19/Mar/21
Canson said on 11/Mar/21
@Rising and Editor Rob: something else I picked up on is that he said his brother is 6’6 1/2 in the quote above. On Conan’s show he said 6’7 when he claimed 6’4” for himself. So his 6’6.5 is consistent enough with his 6’3.5” claims
OriginalAnon said on 11/Mar/21
I am surprised he was 6'4'' peak. Would never have put this guy over 190cm. Obviously I am way off.
Jug said on 1/Mar/21
6'3.5 in his prime I would say. My mother almost dated him once, said he was a really sweet man. A very handsome guy, a rare breed, and always a class act.
Canson said on 17/Feb/21
Really there is an argument for 6’3.5 all the way to 6’4” because of how he’s appeared in pics and with various types of footwear
Canson said on 17/Feb/21
@Chaos Control: yep there’s an argument for it or anything from .5-.75
AdamS said on 10/Feb/21
He towers over Schwarzenegger.
Click Here
ChaosControl 6'2 1/2 said on 9/Feb/21
Is there not an argument for 6’3.75? Fine, I’ll make one
Lankyweasel635 said on 9/Feb/21
In Mr Baseball he was listed as 6ft 3in.

Regardless, great actor, and apparently a pretty down to earth nice guy too.
Canson said on 9/Feb/21
@Rising: he also looked shorter than Dennis Haysbert who was 6’4.25 or 6’4.5. An inch or 2cm worst case
Rising174cm said on 8/Feb/21
@Vincent: If someone is claiming to be taller than they are, yes, but as I already explained, the arguments for Selleck downgrading himself a half inch on two random occasions don't make sense. Darryl Strawberry told Mike Tyson on video that he's 6'5", which is also what his booking sheet had him. With that in mind, Selleck at 6'3.5" looks a lot more believable than 6'4": Click Here Click Here Click Here

Yes, he slouched, but he looked much shorter when he did. Posture has him looking closer to 6'1" in this shot with 5'10" Patrick Swayze: Click Here
Vincent Caleb said on 6/Feb/21
Honestly, height claims should be taken with a grain of salt no matter what they are IMO. Does the Rock claiming 6’5” have any more credibility than Darius Campbell claiming 6’2”? So many variables can be applied, unless it was a verifiable measurement like in football of basketball, no reason to believe it has credibility. Even football measurements can be faked however, just look at Tebow and Merriman. I say just use the photos as evidence.
Rising174cm said on 1/Feb/21
It's worth noting for those who explain away the 6'3.5" claims by saying he shaved a half inch to get roles that Selleck claimed 6'4" in 1980 above, but then *after* getting the Magnum role claimed 6'3.5" in the December 27, 1980-January 2, 1981 TV Guide and then *after* he began getting signed to be the leading man in big budget films, he claimed "about" 6'3.5" again in the 1987 Houston Chronicle only to claim 6'4" again in the 1989 quote above.

This pattern doesn't make sense if he was consciously trying to get roles by shaving off 1/2" and while he might have had reason to worry about his height in the 70s, this was no longer true after Magnum or especially after he began starring in popular roles. When you're the star, they cast around you, not the other way around. Similarly, it's not clear why a 6'3.5" guy would get any roles a 6'4" guy wouldn't. 6'3", maybe, but he didn't claim that until 2019 by which time he was clearly, at best, rounding up. The pattern only really makes sense if Selleck measured around 6'3.5" in his younger years and often just rounded to the nearest inch, as most do.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 29/Jan/21
🎂🎈🎊🎁 Happy Birthday Tom! 🎁🎊🎈🎂

Wishing Tom Selleck a great 76th Birthday today.

6ft4 peak; 6ft3 now.

Rising174cm said on 29/Jan/21
@Rob: Thanks, at least nobody will say I'm making that up or misremembering now, which a few have done before! I remember the 1980/81 TV Guide interview from my early time on the site around 2009ish although the 1987 Houston Chronicle interview was posted more recently. Had I known it was that significant, I would have taken screenshots!

@Canson: Interestingly, I had first begun doubting Selleck was a full 6'4" when I saw a series of photos from around 1990 with Patrick Swayze. Selleck was slouching, but wound up looking only a few inches taller than the 5'10" Swayze. Then I saw the first TV Guide interview and it added up to me.
Editor Rob
yeah, I never archived a lot of stuff back then, however last few years I've been archiving a lot more height-related quotes.
Canson said on 28/Jan/21
@Rising: yea I knew he saw. But I was going off what he said above with once quoted
Rising174cm said on 27/Jan/21
@Canson: I think Rob saw both claims because he referenced the "about" 6'3.5" claim from the 1987 Houston Chronicle, but yeah, about 1" taller than Danson in the late 80s on and off screen. But yeah at an honest 6'3.5", he could come across 6'4" at times, especially when he wore fairly thick boots.
Editor Rob
yes, back in earlier days of google news searching, many articles were viewable and I remember seeing that. Then another visitor spotted another mention on a news site and I remember viewing that is behind a paywall.
AdamS said on 27/Jan/21
In that famous lineup with Jessica Tandy, Selleck is slouching but he edges all of them. He’s got an easy 2 inches and more on John Candy.
Canson said on 26/Jan/21
@Rising: lol maybe Big G snuck a small fraction in the late 50s but I don’t see anything noticeable until around 60 either. However, Rob’s old buddy has returned with a vengeance as Today he looks like he has lost height. And thats in his 70s so the 6’3 may have been in 60s. Maybe generously 2 cm. He never looked more than 6’3.5 claim against people of “similar” height like Ted Danson (1” shorter) 6’2.5”. I think he looked taller in Magnum PI because of his build as he was significantly thinner in the 80s than he is today. I never got the big 6’4 impression seeing him that I got from Hasselhoff or Seagal or Lundgren or even modern day guys like Padalecki. Even Adam Baldwin who at his peak could’ve been 6’4 was heavier but gave me a taller impression. Then you have guys like Momoa who can even look slightly taller even if he himself may not quite make 6’4 flat afternoon maybe 6’3.75 or 6’3 7/8.

@Editor Rob: actually he was quoted twice as saying 6’3.5. Rising mentioned 1981 and 87
Rising174cm said on 2/Jan/21
@Rampage: That depends on the occasion. He certainly doesn't look 6'4" with a 67 year old (still 5'9" range?) Paul Newman in 1992 even considering his lean: Click Here I've previously posted 2 other photos of Newman and Selleck from that event. He also doesn't look like how you'd expect a 6'4" man to look with 5'7.5" Spielberg in 1995: Click Here I will agree that he was still his peak height. I don't think Selleck lost any height until his early 60s.

@Canson: Depends on the individual. I think I've been guessed between 5'6" and 5'10". I have probably gotten more 5'8" and 5'9" guesses than above or below that. In the above pic at 65, Selleck was definitely no taller than 6'3", imo.
Canson said on 31/Dec/20
@Rising: I agree with the statement about using or claiming a fraction. I’ve been told I look taller than 6’4” before. So I’ll say on occasion 6’4.25” But I’ve been told I don’t look 6’5 before too and that I look 6’4” which I am
Canson said on 31/Dec/20
@Rising: I agree with what you said and also agree with his current being less than 6’3” today. He may have lost an inch at this stage. So maybe 6’3.5 and 6’2.5”. He’s put on some weight since Magnum PI. I saw part of an episode last night as they air on TV every night
Canson said on 31/Dec/20
Editor Rob
It can go both ways.

An actor claims 6ft 3.5 and other occasions rounds to 6ft 4.

This is the example of Brosofdestruction that was discussed on Taker’s page. I explained that to the one poster (who I won’t name) who began all of the trouble on the page and he used an excuse that it wasn’t. He instead said that he claimed both after it was clear after Brosofdestruction said he is 6’3.5 all the time. Of course when the argument is only half full and not half empty (we don’t know if that was Brosofdestruction’s low)
Canson said on 31/Dec/20
@Editor Rob: I agree with Rising that his peak height was 6’3.5”. His argument is very strong for it and the video link is a great piece of evidence. Another explanation is that that may have (most likely) been Selleck’s afternoon height. Meaning he would be 6’4.25 upon waking which most guys who wake that size and get an early morning 6’3 7/8 or 6’4 would claim 6’4”. He is a legit 6’3.5” guy who doesn’t likely dip below the mark in addition to what Rising said and what you mentioned
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 31/Dec/20
He still looked 6ft4 in the 90's
Rising174cm said on 31/Dec/20
@Rob: Yeah in this case, I've never bought the downplaying explanation because if he wanted to be perceived as shorter then I don't understand why he'd claim 6'4" consistently and then randomly claim 6'3.5" only twice, especially since he had the Magnum role at the time and didn't need to worry so much about casting. You'd also be more likely to list a shorter height in your bio for casting rather than claim it interviews, yet Selleck's official listing was always 6'4". The second photo with Ford is interesting as he looks shorter than his claim, but it's also interesting to compare him to Hanks in the first pic while accounting for the Cubans Hanks is wearing.
Rising174cm said on 30/Dec/20
@Canson: Yeah, the simplest explanation for the 6'3.5" claims is the correct one. Don't know about Haysbert; could have been 2 cm or an inch. However, we do know Darryl Strawberry claimed 6'5" in his prime and he had a good 1.5" on Selleck in the early 90s. Athletes are a good reference. Rob also met Edward James Olmos and you can tell me if Selleck looks over 6'3.5" with him: Click Here Or with 5'10" F. Murray Abraham with both standing well indoors: Click Here Watch An Innocent Man, both because it's a good film and because you'll see that's about how they looked. And how tall does Selleck look here with 5'11"-5'11.5" Prince Albert in 2004? Click Here

Someone who claims an honest height is always perceived as taller. The reason for this is obvious. Similarly, a claim with a fraction is likely to be the truth unless it looks unbelievable.
Editor Rob
It can go both ways.

An actor claims 6ft 3.5 and other occasions rounds to 6ft 4.

An actor claims 6ft 3.5 so as not to say 6ft 4.

In Tom's case, since he's said 6ft 4 before and 3.5 (one time as mentioned 'about 6ft 3.5'), I have always seen the argument that he could have measured it and isn't knocking a half inch off....

folk have seen that photo before of Selleck and Ford

here is another shot of them: click here
Canson said on 29/Dec/20
@Rising: well said. I would say in the later movie that Selleck and Haysbert were in 2cm between them. I’m still unsure on Haysbert’s height. Was he 6’4.5 peak or just my height (6’4.25 to 3/8 peak) and just got measured closer to 6’4.5”. Either way 6’3.5 for Selleck fits imho and 6’2.5 for Danson
Rising174cm said on 25/Dec/20
Not only does Selleck claiming 6'3.5" twice in the 80s confirm that as his peak height(there's no explanation for that other than Selleck actually being 6'3.5"), but he looked 6'3" range plenty of times. Watch An Innocent Man(1989). At no point does Selleck look 6" taller than 5'10" F. Murray Abraham. In fact, the difference looks closer to 5" than 6". Moreover, admitted 6'5" Darryl Strawberry was very clearly more than just an inch taller than Selleck, 6'4.5" Dennis Haysbert had an inch on Selleck in Mr. Baseball(1992) and Selleck was only about an inch taller than 6'2.5" Ted Danson in the late 80s.

Also, 189-190 cm range is the absolute tallest Selleck could be currently. The photo above is about a decade old now. I could buy Selleck still stretching up to a full 6'3" a decade ago, but not now.
AdamS said on 20/Dec/20
With Roger Mosley :
Click Here

This is Hasselhoff with Mosley:
Click Here
Height_Guesser said on 18/Dec/20
6’ 3.5” peak. Looked around 4 inches taller than Chandler and 2.5-3 inches taller than Ross on friends. At age 75 it looks he has lost an inch so I would give him a current height of 6’ 2.5”
Friends1994 said on 4/Dec/20
Just a shade under 6’ 4” with a peak of 6’ 3.75” he towered over Schwimmer who was legit 6’ 1”. At 75 he has lost at least an inch and I’m guessing he is probably 6’ 2.25” range now.
Arch Stanton said on 28/Nov/20
How did he manage to look so good with that moustache LOL, most younger men, myself included cannot pull it off!!. My dad's had a tash for 45 years, suits him, I didn't inherit his black hair or moustache!
Canson said on 27/Nov/20
@Viper: he looked it physically in Magnum PI. Very think so maybe he was in between
Editor Rob said on 27/Nov/20
Click Here

With Arnie back in the day
Canson said on 25/Oct/20
@Viper: I watch Magnum PI some days on Charge and I see him in his prime and he could look it. He was thinner then. But that’s how a weak 6’4” guy should look. Very much close to 6’4”. He could’ve been something like 6’3 5/8”
viper said on 23/Oct/20
I always thought he was 6-4......until his 6-3.5 claims
jeffrey Parker said on 23/Oct/20
I met him once and I am 5"10 exactly ,He at maybe 50 years old with boots on was about 2 1/2 inches taller than me ,I had on dress shoes 1 inch heels ,He had on cowboy boots maybe 2 inch heels but the boots look like built up platforms from the front to back .They could have had lifts in them
Kale - 186.5 said on 21/Oct/20
I honestly think Selleck was the full 6'4 in his prime.

When he joined Friends as Richard Burke, he made everyone look small, even 6'1 David Schwimmer.

He was in his early 50s at that point, so maybe had begun to show signs of height loss, but I doubt it was very much.

Also, given the style of the characters clothes it can be assumed he wore dress shoes in most episodes. Which would have given him an extra 1 - 1.5 inches, making him just over 6'5.
Canson said on 18/Oct/20
He claimed 6’3.5 twice 1981 and 1987. He was never 6’4” in his prime. Don’t know why he would lie about it
Gregory Czerepak said on 14/Oct/20
I'll give him 6-3 and 275 lbs.
Canson said on 27/Sep/20
Yea Rising Force said it before and I agree. Selleck is under 6’3 today. Probably 189-190 range now. Maybe 6’2.75 but that’s the max. Peak height was around 192
Jkiller said on 7/Sep/20
I believe his peak height was fairly close to 6'3.75, and nowadays a decent 6'3.
miko said on 25/Aug/20
Dave, yes we do have to confirm that Rob was cornered by the height police and found to be in a whopping pair of lifts, and was measured barefoot at 5'6.75, and the Glenn photos were doctored too, Glenn is 5'9!

Haha ;)
Canson said on 25/Aug/20
Dave Wilco said on 22/Aug/20
This stuff is laughable. He's taller than all of you, and still looks tall and commanding. What is this obsession? I bet the owner of the site wears elevator shoes out of insecurity.

I doubt Rob is insecure nor does he wear elevator shoes. Don’t be rude
Dave Wilco said on 22/Aug/20
This stuff is laughable. He's taller than all of you, and still looks tall and commanding. What is this obsession? I bet the owner of the site wears elevator shoes out of insecurity.
Editor Rob
🎣 Why are you commenting on Tom Selleck's Height page on a site called And voting on his height too?

You would lose your bet though 👍
Sinclair said on 8/Aug/20
An early 1980s Tom Selleck defines 6’4” for me. I suspect Selleck was over an inch taller than Ted Danson at their peaks and Selleck often practiced quite relaxed posture in Magnum Pi. and in Three Men and a Baby. Selleck seemed to have a couple of inches over Roger E. Mosley in Magnum Pi.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Jul/20
190cm today, Rob?
Editor Rob
Today he might be heading towards it.
Canson said on 30/Jun/20
@Mickie: agreed. Somewhere around 192 peak. Easily round able to 6’4” from his low imho. But not a full 6’4”. Today could be a weak 6’3”. But that’s a bit interesting. He said at 6’3 and he referred to his Magnum PI days in that same sentence that Rob captioned above so I wonder if he was implying that he was never 6’4”. He also claimed 6’3.5 twice once in 1981 and 1987 from what Rising Mentioned
Mickie said on 29/Jun/20
I agree that today he'd be short of 6'3". At his peak, I would estimate him at 6'3.5" with an outside chance of 6'3.75" (6'3.5" - 6'3 5/8" being most likely).
Canson said on 29/Jun/20
Wonder if what Rising estimated today was right (189-190). He doesn’t even look the full 6’3” today like he said. Maybe 6’3.5 peak and 6’2.5-.75 today
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 14/Jun/20
Stilled looked 6ft4 on Friends.
viper said on 9/Jun/20
And yet, I don't think Hasselhoff ever looked taller than a flat 6-4 on Baywatch
viper said on 9/Jun/20
Yep, Hasselhoff can pull off 6-4.5 at times on that show.

Selleck a flat 6-4 at the absolute most
Canson said on 8/Jun/20
watching Magnum PI and Knight Rider marathons on TV, I get a slightly taller impression from Hasselhoff as opposed to Selleck
Charles Crawford said on 7/Jun/20
I read somewhere that the car used in Magnum, P.I. had to be modified due to Tom’s height. A legit 6’4 peak seems very plausible.
Aidan 5'10.5" said on 6/Jun/20
watching him in magnum P.I. he looks a decent 6’4”, he’s probably lost nearly an inch with age
Canson said on 5/Jun/20
@Junior: I don’t see why. He claimed it twice
Nik said on 8/May/20
He comes from a very tall family.
James B 172cm said on 25/Mar/20
6ft3.75 could be his peak
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Mar/20
Rob, are you still content with 6ft4 peak?
Editor Rob
6ft 3.5-4, anywhere amongst it is arguable
Canson said on 22/Jan/20
@Berta: that’s because Conan is not 193. Max 192 and Selleck has Slightly more footwear that time
Nik said on 20/Jan/20
6'0" is believable!
Johnny G said on 20/Jan/20
Tom in his peak 6'4"'no argument, but Tom has battled arthritis, so losing some height is understandable.. Also Tom in his 30's was much leaner as well
Mickie said on 17/Jan/20
6'3.5" peak height imo.
berta said on 7/Jan/20
the one thing that is very strange is that he was clearly taller than Conan o brien who i really Think was/ is 193 cm peak ore a tiny fraction under maybe ( 2-3 mm). He have bad proportion when it comes to look tll. broad shoulders, big head and hand. that can make him look 6 foot 3 when standing alone but beside people like Conan and ted danson, you really see that anything under 192 is imposible
Canson said on 3/Jan/20
His claim looked right for his peak 6’3.5
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Jan/20
Same area as Lee Pace, Conan O’Brien, peak D’Onofrio and peak John Wayne but likely edged by guys Neeson, Hasselhoff and Seagal

He doesn’t have the typical 6ft4 proportions and therefore his height isn’t always that apparent until you see him beside other six footers like Ted Danson, James Garner, Roger Mosesley and David Schwimmer.
viper said on 2/Dec/19
I can believe Robbins is 6-4.5 looking shorter than Stern
Canson said on 1/Dec/19
@Junior: Selleck had Danson by only 1” in their primes. I think Danson is listed appropriately for his peak 6’2.5 and Selleck 6’3.5” like he claimed

@Viper: you think Robbins is less or more than 6’4.5? He looks under 6’5 with Stern

@Mickie: maybe 6’2.75 today but no higher. 6’2.5 is very much possible
Mike O said on 30/Nov/19
Flatfooted without shoes 6'3.5" peak/6'2.5" now. Big man.
Mickie said on 28/Nov/19
I'd go with:
Peak 6'3.5"
Current 6'2.5"
viper said on 16/Nov/19
His 6-3.5 is more believable to me than Tim Robbins 6-4.5
Chris Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 13/Nov/19
In Blue Blood he still look 6'3 now. I doubt 6'4 is his peak. Ted Danson and Tom Selleck peak look 1.25" never was 1.5" that high. Not sure he is only 6'3 1/2 peak more like rounding down once.
Choco said on 31/Oct/19
Oh wow, Selleck knows about height and is clearly interested!
Canson said on 29/Sep/19
@Rising: agree with everything you said!
Rising174cm said on 28/Sep/19
@Canson: True. December 1980/January 1981 TV Guide and 1987 Houston Chronicle. Unfortunately, the link to the latter has been dead for a few years and a preview of the former is no longer available on Google books. And it's not like Selleck only looked 6'3.5" due to posture. In fact, his loose posture could make him look considerably shorter than that. An example is this full photo with 5'7.5" Spielberg in the mid 90's: Click Here or with a 67 year old Paul Newman, who may have not been a full 5'9" by that point: Click Here Click Here and 5'9.5" listed Don Johnson in 1990: Click Here Click Here Personally, I doubt Johnson was taller than 5'9" flat. Remember, he wasn't taller than EDward James Olmos, which brings me to one more comparison.

Actually, Selleck is standing straighter than 5'9" Edward James Olmos here and closer to the camera: Click Here Ok, one more. Selleck with 5'10" listed F. Murray Abraham in the underrated 1989 film An Innocent Man: Click Here At no point in the film does Selleck appear 6" taller than Abraham and his posture is ok in this particular still. I won't re-post the Swayze photos again, but that's another case where Selleck didn't look 6'4" or actually anywhere near it in that case even accounting for posture. The obvious conclusion is that Selleck was 6'3.5" back in the 80's just as he claimed and is now under 6'3" at 74 years old.
Canson said on 23/Sep/19
@Rob: he was actually quoted twice (as Rising pointed out) with saying that he’s 6’3.5”
Canson said on 22/Sep/19
@Rising: I also am in agreement with you and Sotiris. That (6’3.5” peak height) looked accurate with 6’2.5” Ted Danson and 6’5” Darryl Strawberry as well as a strong 6’4” Dennis Haysbert where there was around 2cm between them. Today I agree probably weak 6’3” guy. He likely rounds up his height to 6’3” today or he measured when he still was the full 6’3”. I’ve noticed with some guys when they lose height that they will still claim their peak. He may not be claiming his max peak 6’3.5” but likely close to it
Rising174cm said on 21/Sep/19
I agree there's no chance Selleck was 6'3" flat peak, but there's also no chance he was a full 6'4" peak since he was claiming 6'3.5". That just makes no sense unless he was about 6'3.5" peak and there's enough evidence of him looking that peak as both myself and Sotiris has shown. Also, Selleck is pretty clear not a full 6'3" anymore. Look at the picture above, he might have still been able to straighten up to 6'3" then, but that pic is now 8 years old! His posture was already making him look 6'2" range next to Bridget Moynihan at 66 and Selleck didn't start shrinking noticeably until probably his early 60s so it stands to reason that he lost more height between age 66 and his current 74.

Look at Selleck over 15 years ago with 5'11"-5'11.5" range Prince Albert: Click Here Click Here He honestly doesn't look over 6'3" there, if that. I don't doubt he still was, but again, it's pretty clear Selleck wasn't telling some nonsensical lie when he said he was 6'3.5" multiple times 6 years apart.

By the way, the 6'3" quote in context doesn't even suggest he's referring to his current height. Notice he's talking about his potential as a leading man and even referring to his Magnum days. It's fairly likely the 6'3" claim was just rounding down his peak height of 6'3.5" instead of his usual round up. Especially since men(particularly celebrities), tend to continue claiming their peak height even long after they've began shrinking. The main exception is when their height loss becomes too noticeable to ignore such as with Arnold and Hulk Hogan, but even then we saw Clint Eastwood claim 6'4" as recent as 2004.

Of course, Selleck could also be rounding up his current height or even not referring to one or the other, but the most I can buy for him currently is 190 cm.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Sep/19
Ok, maybe he got measured recently at 6ft3 but not a chance he just that peak
Johnny G said on 11/Sep/19
In his prime a solid 6'4 , but a tad shorter today
Sotiris Gravas said on 29/Aug/19
Rob has Michael Cudlitz at 6'1", but he's max 6'0".

Maybe 6'2.5" Selleck w/ Cudlitz (2016)... Click Here

W/ max 6'2" Sheamus (2015)... Click Here , Click Here

Not that it matters, but all of these ppl have a mustache.
Canson said on 15/Aug/19
@Mickie: possible
Mickie said on 14/Aug/19
Peak height maybe 6' 3 5/8". About an inch less today.
Chris Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 6/Aug/19
Peak 192.5cm
Now 190.5cm (not under)
Canson said on 4/Aug/19
Peak 6’3.5
Today 6’2.5-.75
Canson said on 1/Aug/19
@Viper: if anything my Dad has lost maybe 1/2” possibly even just a CM. He’s only half inch or maybe 5/8” shorter than me
viper said on 30/Jul/19
My dad is near his age and hasn't shrunk, much less rapidly
Canson said on 30/Jul/19
Peak 6’3.5 like he claimed
Johan 185 cm said on 29/Jul/19
Not sure about his current as he has got to the age where he will begin shrinking rapidly. However 5 years ago he still looked 6'3.5".

I read some interesting comments about Selleck back in his prime. People would say that he bent his knees and stood with his legs in a wide stance to accomodate other actors.

I think 6'3.75"-6'4" is good for a peak range. Not over though.
Chris Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 10/Jul/19
Rob, Tom Selleck claim both 6'3.5" and 6'4 maybe he is just between it at 6'3.75" peak?
Canson said on 9/Jul/19
@Rob: 6’3” doesn’t mean he measured a flat 6’3”. He could’ve easily been near that mark in the morning and rounded up or could’ve been 6’2 1/2 or 5/8 and rounded up. Now I don’t rule 6’3” out because it may be a posture issue like Hulk Hogan or Undertaker for example which make him look shorter than he is but I don’t rule out Sotiris’s estimates. I definitely do not believe that he was 6’4” at his peak if he claimed 6’3.5 and 6’2.5 I could even see today as that’s an inch height loss at that age
Canson said on 2/Jul/19
@Rising: I agree with the heights for Selleck peak and current that Sotiris gave
Editor Rob
Selleck's latest quote (from this year), he did describe himself as 6ft 3.
Rising174cm said on 29/Jun/19
I actually agree with Sotiris. 6'3.5" peak and about 6'2.5" now. He's clearly lost height, but having claimed 6'3.5" at least twice in the 80's and now 6'3", it's really the only thing that adds up. A 6'3.5" guy will usually claim 6'4" if they round, but may also claim 6'3" every now and then, especially if they're older and not specifically referring to peak and current. But if someone claims 6'3.5", then chances are they're not a full 6'4". 6'3.75" is possible, but 6'3.5" suits him better. The man said so himself and could look around that often enough with Haysbert, Danson, Strawberry, Prince Albert, Edward James Olmos, Paul Newman, Chevy Chase etc. The tallest I could see him now at 74 is 6'2.75", even considering his posture.
Canson said on 19/May/19
@Sotiris: Haysbert hardly towers him. That’s about an inch between them maybe 1 1/2”. Their listings add up in the pic or at least very close. I agree with you and Rising that Selleck is probably around 190cm maybe a little less today. Haysbert May be 6’3.75 today. I’d say peak heights Haysbert was my height 6’4.25-.3 at a low and Tom Selleck 6’3.5. He and Conan were close in height at their peaks while he edged 6’2.5 Ted Danson by an inch
Canson said on 19/May/19
@Sotiris: I disagree. Haysbert hardly towers him. That’s about an inch between them maybe 1 1/4”. Their listings add up in the pic or at least very close. I agree with Rising that Selleck is probably around 190cm. Haysbert May be 6’3.75 today
Canson said on 19/May/19
@Sotiris: I disagree. Haysbert hardly towers him. That’s about an inch between them. Their listings add up in the pic
Sotiris Gravas said on 17/May/19
Selleck was shorter than 6'4" Dennis Haysbert back in 1992... Click Here , Click Here , Click Here

Here they both are in 2015... Click Here
In this one, Haysbert towers over him... Click Here

Keep in mind, this was Haysbert being towered by 6'4" Henry Simmons (2017)... Click Here
Click Here

I once thought Selleck was around the same height as Boomer Esiason nowadays when I saw this pic:
Click Here But then I saw this... Click Here

Keep in mind, this was Boomer w/ 6'4.25" Eli Manning (2011)... Click Here
As well as 6'5.25" Peyton Manning (2005)... Click Here

6'5" Darryl Strawberry and Selleck... Click Here

6'5" Lee Canalito and Selleck (1980)... Click Here

I think Selleck might have been max 6'3.5" peak height and now maybe 6'2.5".
Rising174cm said on 11/May/19
@Canson: I agree 100%. 6'3.5" peak, just as he claimed at least twice back n the 80's, but he's now shrunk below 6'3" at 74. 190 cm is the highest I'd go currently, though somewhere in the 189-190 range since his posture makes it difficult to tell exactly now.
Canson said on 11/Mar/19
Peak height 6’3.5
Today 6’2.75
Aletta van der Horst said on 26/Feb/19
Soooo, in my country (The Netherlands) the average height of men is about 184 cm, and women are about 170 cm. What's the issue?
These guys are average height. :-)
Canson said on 25/Dec/18
@Judy: comparing the pics, I have Selleck as precisely an inch taller than 6’2.5 listed Ted Danson. I agree with Rob on Danson as well as he looks an inch shorter in pics for example the one Rising posted. Then comparing Selleck to Strawberry and Selleck to Haysbert, I see a 3.5-4 cm difference with the former and 1.9-2cm (3/4” approximately) with the latter. The difference in the comparisons is approximately half. .75 vs 1.5
Canson said on 25/Dec/18
@Judy: comparing the pics, I have Selleck as precisely an inch taller than 6’2.5 listed Ted Danson. I agree with Rob on Danson as well as he looks an inch taller in pics for example the one Rising posted. Then comparing Selleck to Strawberry and Selleck to Haysbert, I see a 3.5-4 cm difference with the former and 1.9-2cm (3/4” approximately) with the latter. The difference in the comparisons is approximately half. .75 vs 1.5
Canson-6'4 3/8 said on 25/Dec/18
@Judy: I don’t see anything wrong with his neck or anything there. He had better posture back then than he does today. He also wasn’t as heavy as he is today. But Selleck claiming 6’3.5 back then certainly adds us as Strawberry claimed 6’5” despite the 6’6” listing
Rising - 174 cm said on 24/Dec/18
Take off Selleck's cap (which adds at least 1/2" to 3/4") and their heads will be within a fraction of each other.
Rising - 174 cm said on 24/Dec/18
Here's those two Blue Bloods pics with lines at their chins and the top of their heads: Click Here In the first one, Haysbert's head comes out at 153 pixels with Selleck's at 144 and they're both 136 pixels in the second. Haysbert certainly isn't closer to the camera in these pics, but the discrepancy in the first pic is likely due to Haysbert tilting his head down making his head longer. Actually, the difference there is even bigger from their eye level since their eye level is almost the same. I can do the same thing with each and Ted Danson, but I hope this will suffice to show there's not a big difference in head length between Selleck and Haysbert.

@Canson: As a big fan of Cheers, those are cool pics. I agree, I didn't know if Danson was 6'2" or 6'3" for years when I watched the show because I remember reading 6'2", but his character laughs at either a 6'2" or a 6'2.5" character he's competing with for Diane(Shelley Long) and brags he's 6'3". But it turns out Danson was billed at 6'2" in the early 80's, though there were also some 6'2.5" descriptions in the early 90's, which may have come from him so I agree with 6'2.5" for Danson and 6'3.5" for Selleck since an inch difference looked about right in the 80's: Click Here Haysbert at 6'4.25" also seems good. Interestingly, Danson doesn't look more than 1.5" shorter than Haysbert in that full pic from this year so maybe Danson is still 6'2" and Haysbert now struggling with 6'4", though Haysbert still looked all of 6'4" with Danson in 2014. Selleck still looked like he'd be an inch taller than Danson the last time I saw them, but that was at least 7 years ago now: Click Here Could be earlier than 2011, but I can't find the exact date. I think he was probably still a full 6'3" standing straight when Blue Bloods started, but there's a good chance he's lost a little more height since.
Judy said on 24/Dec/18
Get Selleck to stop hunching and to lock his knees and his long head will take him within an inch of Strawberry.
Click Here
Canson said on 24/Dec/18
@Rising: one of the other things I’ve noticed is that Ted Danson has always been on the “lanky side” lol. He physically looked as tall as some 6’3 guys, although I do buy the 6’2.5 as not only his peak but probably around a low for him. Maybe at worst 6’2 3/8 but maybe even on the money for him. But comparing Selleck to Danson, I would say that Selleck had him by an inch at their peaks but Danson gave off and still gives off a taller impression due to the build and his slender body vs Selleck who is heavier. Check out these two pics This is Sam Malone 30 years later lol

Click Here

Click Here
Canson said on 24/Dec/18
@Rising: yea i agree with everything you said. I would lean towards 2cm than 3 or 1 as well. I never got a true 6’4.5 impression on him. But my definition of that type of height is more what a weak 6’5” guy like Tim Robbins would look like. If I had to bet money I would say he’s probably my height at his peak. I’m actually a bit more than solid more strong 6’4. I’m 6’5 out of bed or about 1.5mm over and around 6’4.25-.3 at a low. 6’4.25 if I hit the gym. I think he’d be that type of height. Lunchtime height for me is more 6’4 3/8 if we’re going 5 hours out of bed. To me Haysbert is Probably a little more than a peak Hasselhoff maybe more like a peak Jeff Goldblum as I have him at Rob’s listing as well.
Canson said on 24/Dec/18
@Rising: yea i agree with everything you said. If I had to bet money I would say he’s probably my height at his peak. I’m actually a bit more than solid more strong 6’4. I’m 6’5 out of bed or about 1.5mm over and around 6’4.25-.3 at a low. 6’4.25 if I hit the gym. I think he’d be that type of height. Probably a little more than a peak Hasselhoff maybe more like a peak Jeff Goldblum as I have him at Rob’s listing as well
Rising - 174 cm said on 23/Dec/18
@Judy: You missed the point. I posted that precisely because Haysbert had the advantage to show how that affects head length and to show how much taller Haysbert looks when he has the advantage. It's a greater advantage than the one Selleck had in your photo, but Selleck still has an advantage there with the camera being close and on his side. This is evident because his head looks huge. Remember, I posted this one where Selleck is closer to the camera yet Haysbert still looks taller: Click Here If Haysbert looks taller while at a disadvantage and looks taller for literally the entire film then that goes to show he's taller by a fair amount, probably not less than 2 cm as Canson said. I'll illustrate what I'm talking about regarding their head lengths in a follow up post.

@Canson: Haysbert could very well have been just a solid 6'4" guy peak like you. I agree 6'4.5" at a low might be high, though it's not farfetched at noon. I was somewhat wary of the Strawberry comparison because they're on grass, but with a whole series of pics like that, I agree. There's more than an inch difference.
Canson said on 23/Dec/18
@Judy: Rising is correct. Haysbert is taller than him. Haysbert peak was at least 6’4” if you see those pics and see him with Omar Epps in Love and Basketball. Selleck meanwhile was 6’3.5. That’s all he was next to Darryl Strawberry. If you look at Haysbert with Selleck he’s about half the difference that Strawberry had on Selleck. So what Rising said 6’4.25 is about right which is what I have him. Haysbert claimed 6’4.5 before but that’s probably not a low. He’s probably the same as I am heighwise.
Canson said on 22/Dec/18
@Rising: I agree with what you said. I would say it’s probably 2cm versus just 1. Maybe not quite an inch though but I see Haysbert kinda the same height as I am. He may also be a guy who woke up to 6’5” and dipped to 6’4.25 at his peak or if anything maybe within a mm or two of that in either direction kinda like me
Canson said on 22/Dec/18
He looks 6’3.5 with 6’5” Darryl Strawberry as well
Canson said on 22/Dec/18
@Viper: it does. And a peak Haysbert is more likely around my height versus 6’4.5 at a low
Judy said on 22/Dec/18
Come now Rising. Your last pic clearly gives Haysbert an angle advantage but there is no such obvious (if any) advantage for Selleck in the pic I posted. My pic is without any doubt a better comparison of the two men.
Rising - 174 cm said on 21/Dec/18
@Judy: All I said was Selleck being closer to the camera with the camera itself close to them and on Selleck's side makes his head look larger than it is and makes the height difference smaller than it is. This is not uncommon. Who said anything about it being to a glaring extent? What I was saying is the camera advantage makes Haysbert look only half an inch taller instead of an inch or only 1 cm instead of 2. What I was also saying is seeing the two next to each other where Selleck isn't closer to the camera, I doubt Selleck's head is considerably longer than Haysbert's, if at all. You can also use Ted Danson as a reference and compare each standing next to Danson: Click Here Click Here Haysbert's head actually doesn't look any shorter than Selleck's compared to Danson. When Haysbert was closer to the camera, he looked considerably taller than Selleck in that scene: Click Here When Selleck has the advantage, Haysbert is still taller, albeit not by that much. Haysbert was literally taller the entire movie, if they were about the same height then I'd at least expect Selleck to look taller once in a while or the same height in a few scenes, but that's not the case.
Judy said on 21/Dec/18
Rising, if a camera advantage for Selleck (which I don't see) distorted Selleck's head relative to Haysbert's to that glaring extent, the same advantage should also have Selleck apparently towering over Haysbert because the real height difference between them is very small.
viper said on 15/Dec/18
Sellecks 6-3.5 claim looks right on the money in that pic with Haysbert.
Rising - 174 cm said on 13/Dec/18
@Canson: I can agree with a 2 cm difference. Haysbert about 6'4.25" and Selleck 6'3.5".

@Judy: You're assuming Selleck's head is naturally that much bigger than Haysbert, but that's likely due to a camera advantage the same way Haysbert's head looked bigger when he had the camera advantage in the final scene, which is when that still appears to be taken. Here's some photos to compare their head lengths: Click Here Click Here Haysbert's head actually looks longer in the first photo, including his eye level, but that's probably because he's tilting his head down more and Selleck actually seems closer in the second, but Haysbert's teeth may be apart smiling while Selleck's might not be, but all things considered, their heads seem close in length. Despite being at the disadvantage, Haysbert is still at least 1 cm taller in the still you posted and at least 2 cm comparing their eye level. Selleck's arm around Haysbert's shoulder also might also be minimizing the difference.
Canson said on 12/Dec/18
@Christian: I agree wholeheartedly with your statement and have been saying that since 2015 when I came on here that Conan was closer to 6’3” than 6’4”.
Judy said on 12/Dec/18
Is this not a better comparison with Haysbert? Selleck's huge head takes him to almost the same height as Haysbert.

Click Here
Canson said on 11/Dec/18
@Rising: that’s actually good comparisons there. I think with the first one (definitely when they’re in baseball gear), I would say 2cm. Maybe also the one where they’re both in suits. The others are a bit harder to gauge tho especially on the field. I would have to say that my impression is 2cm up to 3cm in other pics. If we went with 2, that certainly adds up for both guys’ peaks. 6’3.5 which I agree with you on for Selleck and 6’4.25 looks like a good estimate for Haysbert at his peak. I could see both guys having lost height today. But for Haysbert, he looks as if he could still measure a bit higher if he spots straight. I’ve seen some of the Alstate Commercials where he still looks as if he could measure close to 6’4 or right at it. And I had forgotten that they were in True Bloods and Mr Baseball both. I thought just the latter but then I remembered Haysbert made a guest appearance on Blue Bloods. I wish we had a better picture of Haysbert with Peter Hermann. He was on the show as well but in a different season. I have always had Hermann as a legit 6’5” guy.
Jtm said on 11/Dec/18
those pictures with 6'5 darryl strawberry confirm that 6'3.5 was his real height.
Christian 6'5 3/8" said on 10/Dec/18

It goes to show you that Conan wasn't as tall as 192-192.5
Rising - 174 cm said on 10/Dec/18
I'm fairly certain it wasn't a misprint since he said it more than once in Dec. 1980/Jan. 1981 TV Guide and 1987 Houston Chronicle so what are the odds of the same misprint years apart? Also, why would someone misprint 6'4" as 6'3.5"? I could see someone misprinting a round number, but not a half inch as a round number. The most logical answer is that he was a legitimate 6'3.5" man. Conan could be the same, but Selleck's boots made him look a little taller. It's certainly no more difficult for me to believe than Max von Sydow at "only" 191 cm peak.

@Canson: Like I said, I don't know. He could be anywhere from 6'4"-6'4.5", imo. The best scenes for comparing are when they're walking so I can't take stills, but while Selleck is positioned closer to the camera, you can see Haysbert is clearly taller when they're talking: Click Here Selleck is positioned closer to the camera. Haysbert is closer to the camera in this end scene, but I think it still clearly seems like he'd be taller: Click Here and definitely when they argue on the field: Click Here Click Here Here's a wide shot in the clubhouse, though both are unfortunately slouching: Click Here I can see a possibility of an inch difference, especially when they're walking side by side in the clubhouse after the game ends in a tie. Unfortunately, I can't take a still because they're walking, but I think this many stills, while not perfect do get the point across that Haysbert was clearly taller. The question is whether it's as much as an inch, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.

@Judy: Selleck doesn't look more than 4.5" taller than 5'11" James Woods in the same picture.
Canson said on 9/Dec/18
@Rising: I think in Love and Basketball he definitely looked at least 6’4”. I didn’t get the impression of 6’4/6’5 though which is how I view someone who is 6’4.5 at their low. I saw more of a solid 6’4 or someone who’s maybe a hair over when he was next to Omar Epps and Sanaa Lathan. In the Major Leagues same thing. In 24 with Sutherland he looked legit 6’4” but by the latter he was older so not sure if he had lost height by then
berta said on 9/Dec/18
i wonder if he really said he was 192 cm himself ore misprinted. He was the taller one of him and conan o brien and conan is at worst 192-192,5 peak
Rising - 174 cm said on 4/Dec/18
@Canson: I've wondered that too. It's possible he had an inch on Selleck since there was no doubt he was taller throughout the film, but I'm not certain if it was a full inch in general or slightly less. If Haysbert was always a flat 6'4" then 6'3.5" would be the absolute most Selleck could have been, but Haysbert measured up well to Dr. J back in 2003 so I think he'd at least be one of the more appropriate 6'4.25" listings if he weren't 6'4.5" because 6'4" flat would be the absolute lowest, imo and nothing under it even at his low.

@movieguy12: Clint had probably lost a little height by 1985 and may have not been over 6'3" flat then. I do agree Selleck was taller at that time regardless.
Judy said on 3/Dec/18
For some comparison, Scwarzenegger with Christopher reeve.

Click Here
Judy said on 3/Dec/18
He really towered over Schwarzenegger.

Click Here
movieguy12 said on 26/Nov/18
I think he's kept his height well, maybe it's because he's pretty robust generally. Not a lean guy like Clint Eastwood who has lost a lot of height although Selleck is of course considerably younger. To my eyes Tom Selleck is an example of what a genuine 6'4'' guy looks like. He's not one of those guys who looks huge on screen but smaller in real life. There are photos on the net of Tom Selleck and Clint Eastwood dancing in turn with a young Princess Diana. Selleck looks noticeably taller in comparison with Diana than Eastwood. It could just be angles or something but certainly at that point back in the 80s Selleck looks the bigger man.
Canson said on 18/Nov/18
@Rising: did you believe Haysbert as 6’4.5 peak? I had him more like 6’4-6’4.25 at his absolute peak maybe 6’4.5 morning height a couple hours after waking
Canson said on 18/Nov/18
@Rising: did you believe Haysbert as 6’4.5 peak? I had him more like 6’4-6’4.25 at his absolute peak maybe 6’4.5 morning height
Rising - 174 cm said on 16/Nov/18
@Canson: The pic used above was actually taken back in 2010 when Selleck was only 65 and his posture was already making him look 6'2" and I'd have guessed him more a 189-190 cm guy there, but in fairness, I think it's likely he still stretched up to 6'3" flat then. As for his peak, he was definitely shorter than Dennis Haysbert in Mr. Baseball. Could have been an inch difference, but that may depend on the scene.
Canson said on 13/Nov/18
@Rising: actually after seeing more current pics 189-190 looks very good. I wonder how his posture is and if he has any issues standing straight or if he does. I could buy maybe 190 (6’2.75). But a weak 6’3” (6’2.5-.75) like you mentioned looks about as good as any estimate to tell you the truth. I won’t rule out having lost a full inch at his age. But with him, It’s similar to Undertaker albeit Selleck is older than Taker. I wonder how much height Taker has in the Tank because he looks noticeably smaller today than he was even with Ali Baba about a few years ago. I mention that in correlation with Selleck because I saw a pic of him recently where he looked just 6’2” I believe.
Rising - 174 cm said on 11/Nov/18
@Canson: I think all those estimates are fair. What would you give Selleck currently? He's standing surprisingly well here this year with 177 cm Bridget Moynahan: Click Here Tom looks near 4" taller, imo, but Bridget's heels look closer to 2" than 3" and she's bending her knee. I'd have to figure Selleck is somewhere in the 189-190 cm range today, but the man is 73.
Canson said on 11/Nov/18
@Rising: correct the time of the day is a huge variable. My guesses for them are below (based on afternoon)

Jordan: 194-195 (likely closer to 194 at a low)
Magic 201ish give or take peak
Conan 191-192 peak or 191-191.5
Selleck 191.5-192
Rising - 174 cm said on 9/Nov/18
As brief as the greeting is, I still think Selleck and Chevy Chase were about the same height in 1993: Click Here If Selleck was taller it was by a very small amount and I'm not sure Selleck's boots didn't give him a similarly small advantage: Click Here I think both were honest 6'3.5" guys, but Selleck more likely to have measured that even at his low than Chase, imo. I'd be much less surprised if Chase dropped into the 191 range at night while I think Selleck would have measured closer to 192 even then.

@Canson: Yeah, Strawberry probably wouldn't be taller than he claimed himself and was listed on his booking sheet so that's fair. He does look more than just an inch taller than Selleck to me so I think his claim is honest. There's also a photo of both Jordan and Selleck in the outfield tracking a fly ball. Obviously, they're not standing still so it's not good for comparing height, but fwiw, Jordan looks noticeably bigger. I have MJ 195 cm and Conan about 192, but I don't think either has lost height. That would definitely be a shoe height for Wlad since Conan basically called him his brother's height lol. I buy the 6'7.5" Rob has Magic and I think 6'8.5" claim came from a shoe height, but you can argue about the time of day. He can look 6'7" flat at times too.
Canson said on 9/Nov/18
@Rising: I agree that strawberry is 6’5” as well. As for MJ and Selleck I would guess an about inch in between them 6’3.5 and 6’4.5.

With Conan, I would say at his peak that he could’ve been between 191-192 and may still be a hair over 191 today. I’ve also noticed with Wlad Klitschko that Conan told him he thought he was 6’6/6’7 which is a shoe height for Wlad. And with Magic Johnson, it’s clear that a 6’7” Magic makes Conan closer to 6’3 than 6’4”
Rising - 174 cm said on 20/Oct/18
@Canson: Good catch. I didn't notice that about rounding his brother too. That suggests I was right that Selleck is sometimes precise, but often rounds as most people do and I doubt he thinks anything of it. In fairness, Selleck did have thick boots I'd guess would add near 1.5" on that '98 appearance so he'd be 6'5" in them. Conan guessing him 6'4"-6'5" and even saying "I'm ABOUT your height" can be interpreted as Conan believing Selleck edged him, but Conan seemed to perceive Neeson in dress shoes at least as tall as Selleck or even slightly taller and if you notice, when Conan says he's 6'4" and Neeson must be 6'5", Neeson specifies he's 6'4" and a wee bit in his bare feet. So I agree Conan wasn't quite the full 6'4" barefoot, though I think he's a bit taller than you do and would guess more 192 range, but his exact height is tricky because of that hairstyle.

Btw, as viper has mentioned, Strawberry did in fact claim 6'5" himself and in his prime no less: Click Here And bad angle at the end, but interesting to see some footage of Selleck and Michael Jordan in 1993: Click Here
viper said on 19/Oct/18
There is video of Mike Tyson asking Strawberry's height and he says 6-5.
Canson said on 18/Oct/18
@Rising: I also noticed that Selleck called his 6’6.5 brother “6’7” on Conan’s show when Conan guessed him 6’4/6’5. Likely that Selleck rounded him up just like he does himself.
Canson said on 18/Oct/18
@Rising: 6’3.5 also explains why Conan guessed him taller than he is. Conan asked him “what are you 6’4/,6’5”? Selleck would be 6’4/6’5 in shoes but not barefoot. That’s why I’ve said all along that Conan look like a guy who is probably much closer to 6’3” than 6’4. Conan realized Selleck was taller. Ever notice that Conan always comments on someone’s height when they are his height or taller than he is immediately after they come on his show? Klitschko, Joshua, Magic, Selleck, Neeson, haysbert, lithgow etc. I also notice Conan has inflated almost everyone of them before they answered with the exception of Magic and Joshua and Haysbert. Can’t remember about lithgow but he tried to make Neeson 6’5, Selleck 6’4/6’5, Wlad 6’6/6’7, etc. that points directly to shoe measurements for all three of them. Conan also claimed 6’4/6’4.5 which means like shoe measurement. I think he’s 6’4.25 in shoes and 6’3.25 barefoot maybe just 6’3”. He has very thick hair which makes him taller
Rising - 174 cm said on 16/Oct/18
@Canson: Glad we agree on this one. I wouldn't be as sure if the man hadn't said it himself. I can see why many thought he was a legit 6'4", but I think many have a hard time letting go of that even when it's only a half inch and it comes from Tom himself. 6'3.5" looks about right in the series of pics with 6'5" Darryl Strawberry: Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here Darryl Strawberry's booking sheet had him at 6'5" rather than the 6'6" he was listed at when he played: Click Here He was also said to be 6'5" at 18 so the booking sheet makes it probable he never grew past it. The real question is how tall would Selleck measure today?
Canson said on 8/Oct/18
Agree with Rising. 6’3.5 peak
Rising - 174 cm said on 7/Oct/18
Here's a good comparison of Selleck back in 2004 when he was still close to his peak with Prince Albert, whom Rob has estimated 5'11"-5'11.5" range: Click Here Click Here
Full pic of Selleck with 5'7.5" Spielberg back in 1995: Click Here
Selleck with 5'9" Edward James Olmos in 1992: Click Here
Tom and 67 year old Paul Newman in 1992: Click Here Click Here Newman was 2 months shy of his 68th birthday so while he might have been 5'9.5" in his prime, it's doubtful he still was considering how much Newman wound up shrinking.

Pretty strong evidence Selleck wasn't lying when he said 6'3.5".
Terry said on 6/Oct/18
This guy is tall! I am 6'0 and he towered over me. 6'4 peak easily.
Rising - 174 cm said on 6/Oct/18
Gene Simmons may claim 6'2" himself, but Rob lists him 6'1.5" peak and had just been listing him 6'1". I've seen that film and don't remember a good scene to really compare their heights, but Selleck was definitely noticeably taller, but then he would be at 6'3.5".

Selleck in 1993 with another 6'3.5" man Chevy Chase: Click Here The greeting is short, but they look virtually identical and Selleck was wearing boots
Selleck in 1990 with 5'10" Patrick Swayze: Click Here Even considering posture, it's impossible for me to imagine a 6" difference.
Judy said on 4/Oct/18
And with 6ft5 John Cleese. Keep in mind Cleese is closer to the camera :
Click Here
Judy said on 4/Oct/18
And here is Selleck with self described 6ft2 Gene Simmons:
Click Here
Judy said on 4/Oct/18
Here is the Hoff with AJ Calloway who is elsewhere rated at 1.9 m
Click Here
Click Here

And here with Selleck :
Click Here

If you ask AJ he will tell you there is absolutely nothing to choose between the two.
Canson said on 24/Sep/18
People will round you up when you claim half in many instances. Not worth it. Just claim the full number (round down) or round up
Rising - 174 cm said on 23/Sep/18
More civilized? Dude, you're really reaching with that one. I've never heard one person say 6'4" men were "uncivilized", much less that a half inch shorter would make such a dramatic difference. 6'3.5" is very tall as well. To be accurate, it's taller than more than 98% of American men NOW. This is a case where the most simple explanation is the correct one. Selleck was 6'3 1/2" as he said and usually rounded to the nearest inch just like many do. I've said he could've also been something like 6'3 5/8" or maybe even 6'3 3/4" max since he did say "about" 6'3.5" one of those times. Even if someone could come up with a plausible reason Selleck would downgrade himself half an inch, it still wouldn't make sense that he'd try it just a couple of times and then say 6'4" most of the time. And I don't know if Rob only saw the TV Guide claim, but a poster Trent posted a link to the Houston Chronicle claim back in 2012. Selleck could be 6'3.5" in that clip with 6'1.5" Letterman. Their posture is up and down a lot so it's difficult to say exactly, especially since Letterman often worse very low cut shoes without much heel. Nobody is disputing Selleck could look the full 6'4" at times, but he could also look no more than 6'3.5".

With 5'10" F. Murray Abraham in An Innocent Man: Click Here
With 5'9"-5'9.5" Don Johnson in 1990: Click Here Click Here
With 6'1" James Garner: Click Here (Garner may have been 6'1.5" peak, but not by the time he was 50 due to his knees and back)
With 6'2.5" Ted Danson: Click Here Click Here Click Here I included the last pic just to balance out Selleck dropping more height in the second, but Danson is dropping at least an inch in posture in the 3rd pic with Selleck standing straight. Selleck seems about 6'3.5" here overall.

In order to conclude Selleck was lying about being 6'3.5", he'd have to be such a clear cut 6'4"+, but this is not the case. He could definitely look 6'3" range too. Part of this is a tendency people have to arbitrarily assume people are exactly at the full inch even though there's always just as many people just under or over. You wouldn't think that was the case if you just went by claims. Selleck actually looks 6'2" range in the photo above and that was taken in 2010 when Selleck was only 65. Maybe he'd be 6'3" flat there standing straight.
tree said on 21/Sep/18
When people hear 6ft4 they think u are very tall,but 6ft3.5 sounds more civilieazed.
tree said on 21/Sep/18
On the top it says He was also ONCE quoted saying 6ft 3.5.
If he claimed it more it need to be changed.

He did looks 6ft4 with Letterman too Click Here at 9:51 u can see his shoes gave 1 inch only
At worst u could argue 6ft3.75 but he looked more 6ft4
Maybe he was 192,5 and he felt like rounding down.
Canson said on 20/Sep/18
Well said Rising
Canson said on 18/Sep/18
@Tree: I agree with Rising here. He could’ve been 6’3.5 at a low. In addition, 6’3.5 is not going to get him anywhere. At 6’3.5, you will be rounded up to 6’4. I am 6’4.25 at a low and used to claim 6’4.5 as I measured at that in college playing ball and 6’4 3/8 by my doctor previously and when I claimed 6’4 1/2 I was often called 6’5, hence why I stopped claiming it. I consider myself closer to 6’4” and always have really
Rising - 174 cm said on 18/Sep/18
That really doesn't make sense. First of all, 6'3.5" won't get him any roles that 6'4" wouldn't. And he didn't claim 6'3.5" just once. He claimed it in December 1980/January 1981 TV Guide and 1987 Houston Chronicle. If that was his motive then why not list himself 6'3.5"? The fact is, he claimed 6'4" more often so more people knew him as that height regardless. John Lithgow looked 6'4" at 63/64 on Dexter. That doesn't mean he was once 6'4.5". Selleck said it HAD been a problem. That's past tense. He was talking about conflicting with the hero, which means he's likely referring to the 60's and 70's and supporting roles. By the time of the 6'3.5" claims, he was the hero as Magnum. If Selleck had said 6'3" flat then I'd say there may be something to that, but the most logical answer is the 6'3.5" is more precise and the 6'4" is rounding to the nearest inch like most do.
Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 17/Sep/18
@tree The post clip is from 2001 and i disagree Conan is shorter. They look same height from that clip. Prob they're never measure 6'4 from a mid day or night. 6'4 is a morning height from doctor office.
tree said on 16/Sep/18
We saw Connan with many guys whose height we know no way that he is under 6ft3.5 its IMPOSSIBLE
Selleck probably was downgrading a little his height to get more often the big roles,usually 6ft4 is a bit too tall,and u can say he was established by the time he claimed 6ft4 and didn't need to lie but there were other huge names and he often was racing with them for getting big roles.

It had been a problem for me being taken seriously. I'm 6-foot-4 and I came in during the era of leading men like Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino...anybody in the old leading man mold was all of a sudden not acceptable. That was the same reason I didn't do much TV. They said I was too tall or that I conflicted with the hero.

Probalby he thinked that one time claiming 6ft3.5 increasis his chances a bit to get more auditions.
He looked 6ft3.5 in his mid 60's hard to imagine he did not loose anithyng by then.
Rising - 174 cm said on 11/Sep/18
I doubt Conan is a full 6'4". The most probable explanation is Selleck claimed an honest barefoot height of 6'3.5" while Conan claimed a shoe height of 6'4.5".
Canson said on 10/Sep/18
@Tree: he is taller than Conan but because Conan isn’t 6’4”. Selleck is one of many 6’3.5 (which he admitted to) or even 6’4 like Neeson or between like Lithgow that has edged Conan over the years and Conan tries to inflate them. He also called Wlad Klitschko 6’6/6’7 when wlad admitted to 6’6 in the morning 6’5 evening. Conan is 6’3” range (6’3.25 barefoot).
tree said on 9/Sep/18
Here he looked a little taller than 6ft4 Connan Click Here
Rising - 174 cm said on 6/Aug/18
@James B: Selleck is slouching more there, but I don't think he'd be more than an inch taller there if he straightened up, especially since Danson is standing casually himself with hands in his pockets.
James B 172cm said on 3/Aug/18
with ted danson in the 80s

Click Here
Rising - 174 cm said on 1/Aug/18
@James B: It's been decades since I've seen the entire film so I'll have to rewatch and see how he looks with Guttenberg, but I do remember him looking roughly his claim with 6'2.5" Ted Danson. About an inch taller, iirc. No less, but not much more.

@viper: Agreed. Good performance by Selleck and the dynamics in prison are actually far more realistic than most prison movies from that era.
viper said on 31/Jul/18
An innocent man is an awesome movie
James B 172cm said on 30/Jul/18
Well he didnt look a big 6'4 guy in the three men and baby films in the late 80s
Rising - 174 cm said on 26/Jul/18
@James B: I don't see the point in Tom doing that. He claimed 6'3.5" in 1980/1981 and 1987, but his height was usually given as 6'4" so why would he consciously try to make himself a half inch shorter on just those 2 occasions, but then claim 6'4" the rest of the time? It'd be completely ineffective as the vast majority would see 6'4" for him and be unaware he even claimed 6'3.5". It's far more likely he rounded up from 6'3.5" as it's a lot more common to round up to whole inches than vice versa. As I said, he actually didn't look over 6'3" with F. Murray Abraham in An Innocent Man. At most I could see a listing similar to Tim Robbins 6'4.75", but a guy Robbins' height would be more likely to downplay his height, imo. 6'3"-6'4" range is still a height most would admit to. Tom was already established on TV and film when he claimed 6'3.5" so it doesn't make sense he'd do it to get work.
James B 172cm said on 25/Jul/18
i suppouse if john cleese rounded down by claiming 6ft4.5 then so could tom selleck by claiming 6ft3.5
Rising - 174 cm said on 13/Jul/18
Selleck is pretty much the tallest man in An Innocent Man(1989), which includes a pretty tall cast like 6'2" M.C. Gainey, but he honestly didn't look more than 6'3" compared to a 5'10" F. Murray Abraham in An Innocent Man(1989). Some of this can be explained by framing shots, but there are wide shots and this still is pretty representative of how they looked: Click Here I just don't see a full 6" difference at any time and it can actually look 4" range in some scenes, but that can be explained by posture. David Rasche is listed at 6'0" here and the difference is made to look maybe 2" when they're face to face in Selleck's character's house, but this is clearly minimized as you can see Selleck is noticeably taller than Rasche's partner played by Richard Young when Young pats down Selleck at the end of the film, though I don't see Rasche a full 4" shorter either. He does look his typical towering presence when he walks through doorways, but he wears boots in at least some scenes making him 195 cm minimum in footwear excluding hair. I think this is just an example of how tall a legit 6'3.5" is. The difference between Tom and Laila Robins who plays his wife in the film is huge and you at least get an idea in the aforementioned scene with Rasche.

@Canson: I have them both 6'3.5" and Selleck definitely had thicker footwear in 1998, but Selleck still looked a bit taller to me in 2004 and I'm not sure he had much of a footwear advantage then. Maybe some of that was the angle they use on the show, but Conan was definitely no taller even at that point. I give you credit because I had assumed Conan was 6'4" for years and I was skeptical until I really looked into it, but I have to say he's somewhere in that 191-192 cm range barefoot and I think claimed a shoe height when he said 6'4.5".
Canson said on 7/Jul/18
@Rising: agreed. I can see Selleck maybe mildly edging him but at the same time, Selleck May have had a footwear advantage. I only see him edging him because Conan looks closer to 6’3 than 6’4 imho
Rising - 174 cm said on 5/Jul/18
@James B: I think there's a very good chance considering Selleck's claim and there were honestly times even before I saw him claim 6'3.5" where I doubted he was the full 6'4". If a guy like Tim Robbins could be less than 6'5" than Selleck could easily be under 6'4".

@Canson: Selleck is also almost 20 years older than Conan. I don't think Selleck had lost anything by Conan's age either. Selleck was a bigger man and more impressive so imo, 6'3.5" looks a better height on a man like Selleck than Conan who gives more a lanky sort of impression.

@Rob: There's no question about that. He can look 6'2" range to me, but the real question is how much height he typically drops compared to what he'd measure because he does look healthy for his age, but slouches. You have to be careful looking at Blue Bloods cast pics, though because Donnie Wahlberg regularly goes on his toes with Tom. I saw him doing it again in a series of 2017 pics.
James B 171.5cm said on 3/Jul/18
theres always a chance he was a little shy of 6'4 at his peak
Canson said on 24/Jun/18
@Rob: the other thing is that Selleck doesn’t have the proportions that Conan has. Conan has longer legs so he may give off a taller impression than Selleck. To Rising’s credit, I see the same thing as I agree with both of his estimates of 6’3.5 for Selleck and 6’2.5 for Danson at their peaks. That’s how I pegged danson too. Conan on the other hand has Long hair. That gives the illusion he’s taller than he is. My guess for a peak Conan is max 6’3.25-.5 but maybe just 6’3.25. He doesn’t look to have lost any height whereas Selleck has obviously lost but also weighs a lot more than Conan on top of all of that
Dude 173cm said on 22/Jun/18
He was 6'4 in Friends
Rising - 174 cm said on 19/Jun/18
Good downgrade for current height. I'd say weak 6'3" now at 73 years old. Legit 6'3.5" peak or about an inch taller than Ted Danson. In fact, because he said "about" 6'3.5" one of the times, I'd think a 6'3 5/8" listing would be perfect because you could certainly argue the 6'3.75" listing Wayne and Eastwood get, although I think Clint was about 6'3.5" himself. It's likely Conan perceived Selleck as slightly taller than himself because he also said "I'm about your height" while emphasizing the word "about" and we know Conan claims 6'4"-6'4.5" himself, but Selleck had pretty thick boots so this may have been a factor. I believe Conan probably measured 6'4.5" in shoes and I'd bet Selleck did reach about 6'5" in those black boots or at least very close to it. Selleck looked slightly taller to me in 2004 and I'm not sure if he had much of a footwear advantage in that appearance. I don't know how much the camera being on his side was a factor, but Selleck was also 59 at the time so like John Lithgow, I don't think he lost height until his 60's. I can buy anything in the 191-192 cm range for Conan barefoot.
Editor Rob
He is looking max 6ft 3 really, it's noticeable he isn't as tall these days.
Canson said on 26/May/18
@Christian: I have a cousin on my Dad’s side that is 6’7” as well. I was also told someone was 6’8” at one point but never met them
Christian-6'5 3/8" said on 24/May/18

Btw, who's the tallest member in your extended family that you know of? Mine's a 6'7.25" cousin.
Canson said on 23/May/18
Rising Force hit this one on the head. Weak 6’4” peak. 6’3.5-.75. He claimed 6’3.5 and 6’4. But this is how you can tell that Conan isn’t a true 6’4” as he was edged out by Selleck and Conan called Selleck “6’4/6’5” on his show when that would be a shoe height for him.
Canson said on 22/May/18
@Christian: yea my dad got his from his mom mostly. My grandpa was 6’0 I believe and she was somewhere around 5’11”. I was taller than her when she passed but she was every bit of 5’10/5’11
Christian-6'5 3/8" said on 21/May/18
@Mike Voisinet

He's not 6'5" when he claimed 6'4" and 6'3.5"
Mike Voisinet said on 19/May/18
I say that Tom Selleck is 6'4'' tall. He was 2 inches taller than Roger Mosley on Magnum PI. He is also 2 inches taller than his costar Robert Clohessy on Blue Bloods. Clohessy is 6'2. Roger Mosley is also 6'2. So Tom Selleck towers over them both. As far as I am concerned he is still 6'4. He may have been 6'5 at his peak.
Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 9/May/18
I think Selleck can still look 191cm than a flat 6'3.
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 29/Apr/18

My maternal grandmother's only 5'3" but my maternal grandfather's 6'4" (now shrank to 6'3") so that's probably where my mom and my aunt (5'10") got their tall height from. My paternal grandmother's 5'4" and grandfather 5'10" so that's where my dad got his. My uncles (dad's side) are 6'1" (maybe 6'1.5" peak) and 5'11.5" and aunts (dad's side) are 5'8" and 5'5".
Canson said on 28/Apr/18
@Christian: that’s interesting! My grandma (Dad’s Mom) was somewhere around 5’10/5’11
Canson said on 27/Apr/18
@Christian: wow you got yours from your mom. My grandmother, (father’s mother) was your father’s height while my grandfather was 6’0”. My father wound up 6’4” and my uncles 6’3 peak (6’2.5 today) and 6’2
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 26/Apr/18

He's 5'10.5" but my mom is 6'0".
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 25/Apr/18

He's 5'10.5" but my mom is 6'0".
Canson said on 24/Apr/18
@Christian: how tall is your dad?
viper said on 24/Apr/18
He's not real fit or anything, but he's always been fairly healthy. He went over 30 years without seeing a doctor.

My 79 year old Uncle is a pretty fit guy and hasn't lost any height at 5-8. He's been 5-8 155 pounds since his 20s, so that makes sense.
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 24/Apr/18
My dad's in his late 40's so I don't think he lost height yet. Who knows how much he'll lose by the time he hits 70 though.
Canson said on 23/Apr/18
@Rampage: and that’s likely a low for him. Maybe worst case 1/8” lower but usually someone at that age has less of a variance than a guy in his 20s or 30s would. He still clears 6’4” out of bed.

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.