This is the 'Dark Mocha' version. The quality of materials here is a standout pro—the suede feels premium. Compared to a mid-top, the high-top collar gives that classic, locked-in feel. Is it worth the Jordan series premium? For this colorway, yes. But be warned: they can feel heavy and clunky if you're used to lightweight sneakers. Perfect for fashion, not for performance hooping. Let's talk about the Air Jordan 1 High 'Shadow 2.0'. Opening the box, the materials feel great—nice, soft tumbled leather. The grey/black colorway is arguably one of the most versatile ever made 🖤. On foot, it's the same story: fantastic ankle support, decent traction, but let's be real—the cushioning is minimal. It's a lifestyle shoe first. I'd choose this over an AJ1 Mid for the taller collar & classic profile. Perfect for daily wear, but not for long days on concrete. At $170, it's a staple. So I'm lacing up the classic Air Jordan 1 High 'Chicago' (2022 version). The red just pops on camera, it's unreal. First impression? It's "the" blueprint. On foot, it's exactly what you expect: iconic, but not what I'd call comfortable for long walks. The pro is its timeless status in the Jordan series. The con is the price—resale is steep. If this is your grail, go for it. If you just want a comfortable red shoe? There are better, cheaper options. It's a heritage piece, first and foremost. Unboxing the Air Jordan 1 High 'Bordeaux'—the suede/nubuck combo is really nice here. For the Jordan series, this $190 pair feels luxurious. On foot, the materials are softer than all-leather versions. However... suede means you gotta be weather-conscious! The silhouette is timeless, but the cushioning is dated. Perfect for a mature sneaker rotation, but not for someone who prioritizes tech or needs a year-round beater shoe.

  • Shown: Obsidian
  • Style: CT8529-141

Available

Product reviews

Rating 4.5 out of 5. 8,008 reviews.

Characteristics assessment

Cost-benefit

Rating 4.5 out of 10 5

Comfortable

Rating 4.3 out of 5

It's light

Rating 4.3 out of 5

Quality of materials

Rating 4.1 of 5

popular

Assessment 4 of 5