This colorway is super underrated — deep purples and black. The materials feel great! On foot, the support is what you expect — locked-in. The design is sleek — not too loud, but interesting up close. Honestly, a huge pro is the uniqueness factor without being wild. A con? Like all AJ1 Highs, ventilation isn't great. These are for the sneakerhead who appreciates deep cuts in the Jordan series — not just the mega-hyped releases. A personal favorite. Okay, here's the Air Jordan 1 High 'Dark Mocha'. The suede/nubuck on this pair? It's actually really nice for the price point ($170). Gives it a more premium, textured look compared to all-leather 1s. My first impression was how rich the brown tones are in person—photos don't do it justice! On feet, the fit is standard: secure, a bit heavy, but that's the High-top life. It's a great alternative if you missed out on the Travis Scott collabs. Recommend for suede lovers, but not for rainy days—that material is fragile! So I finally got my hands on this pair... the Air Jordan 1 High in the 'Chicago' colorway. Unboxing it is a moment, I'm not gonna lie. The red just pops! On feet, you immediately feel that iconic, slightly elevated silhouette. The cushioning? It's firm... very 1985. Don't expect Boost or React here. The ankle support, however, is fantastic. It's a perfect shoe for style and basketball culture history, but as a all-day, everyday sneaker? There are definitely more comfortable options out there. On foot review: The Air Jordan 1 High 'University Blue' is a straight-up head-turner. The color blocking is classic. However, the toe creases… and it creases fast. That’s part of the charm for some, a deal-breaker for others. For $180, you get a piece of sneaker history. It's ideal for style-focused wardrobes, not for your gym bag.

  • Shown: Desert Elephant
  • Style: CZ6509-100

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