My first impression? The materials feel a step up from some GR lows – the grey suede is nice! Sliding them on, the break-in period is real; they're a bit rigid initially. Visually, this low-top version of a classic high colorway is "fire" for a minimalist wardrobe. It’s a great, understated piece from the Jordan series. Downside? That classic Jordan 1 comfort – or lack thereof – is present. Worth the $120 if you love the palette. Skip if you need plush cushioning. What's up, everyone? Unboxing this 'Black Toe' "Air Jordan 1 Low" right now. Man, this colorway is "timeless" – the black leather on the toe box looks great. Putting them on my feet, the break-in is minimal. The footbed is firm, reminding you this is a retro design. It’s not a "comfort" shoe like a modern runner, but it's perfectly fine for walking around. The "low-top" profile makes it super easy to style with jeans or shorts. Compared to the AJ1 High, it's less restrictive. Great for collectors who dig the look – not so great for folks who prioritize all-day comfort above all else. Let’s talk about the Air Jordan 1 Low 'Elephant Print' edition. The texture on this is wild up-close! On-foot feel is the same reliable, snug fit. It’s a fantastic alternative if you find the Highs too tall or hot. Pro: Unique design that stands out. Con: The print might be too bold for some. At around $130, it's a cool pick for collectors or fans of the print. Alright, first look at the Air Jordan 1 Low 'Cyber'. This metallic silver is crazy in sunlight! Construction feels good. Wearing them, they’re lightweight and the collar is padded nicely. A real pro is how it modernizes a classic silhouette. However, the metallic finish might scratch over time. Who's it for? Someone wanting a futuristic twist on a classic. Not for the faint of heart!

  • Shown: Smoke Grey
  • Style: 854262-001

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