Unboxing is always a vibe with this series. The color-blocking here is "clean" – that white and blue combo pops. On foot, the fit is true to size for me, with a snug – not tight – feel. Compared to a mid or high-top Jordan 1, you obviously lose some ankle support, but you gain a ton of versatility. Major pro? These are summer-staple easy. Con? The outsole is thin; you'll feel the pavement. I'd recommend them for style-focused folks, not for performance ball. Let's talk looks on-camera. This "White Cement Grey" "Air Jordan 1 Low" "pops". The low profile makes your ankles look a bit cleaner in shots compared to the high-top. It's a sleek, everyday sneaker. I "love" this colorway for Spring. However, if you need major arch support or cushioning for all-day wear... this probably isn't your #1 pick. It's more about style than tech. Who should maybe skip it? If you prioritize plush cushioning above all else, look elsewhere. Basketball players needing ankle support – obviously, this isn't it. Also, if you prefer super technical, modern designs, the old-school construction of this AJ1 Low might feel too basic. It's a style-first shoe, not a tech marvel. Unboxing this pair, the build quality seems consistent – no major glue stains or flaws on my pair. The Air Jordan 1 Low silhouette is just so easy to like. When I laced them up, the fit was TTS with a good heel lockdown. Wearing them out, they get a lot of compliments because the design is so recognizable. Versus a Dunk Low, I find the toe box shape on this Jordan 1 Low to be a bit more refined. Pro: It's a heritage sneaker with a great story. Con: The ankle collar can rub if you're not wearing taller socks. For the USD cost, it's a staple. I'd say it's for sneakerheads and normals alike, but maybe not for wide feet without trying on first.

  • Shown: Unc
  • Style: 308497-060

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