It's "more" casual, "less" formal. The Dunk Low has a "slightly" different shape—toe box is roomier. But this AJ1 Low has that "undeniable" heritage. For "pure" Jordan branding in a summer-friendly form, it wins. Comparing it to the high-top "Air Jordan 1"? The "Low" is obviously way more low-profile and, honestly, more practical for daily wear in warmer weather. You lose some of that ankle presence, but you gain a lot in versatility. For $130 (depending on the colorway), it's a great entry point into the "Jordan" series if the highs feel like too much of a statement for you. What's good, fam? Unboxing this "Air Jordan 1 Low" 'Elephant Print' edition. The print adds a nice texture right out of the gate. First wear impression? It's a comfortable "low-top" sneaker, but "comfort" is relative. The insole is basic, and the midsole is that classic, unresponsive foam. For daily errands and casual wear, it's totally fine. The design does all the talking – it's a head-turner. Compared to a Jordan 3 (which also uses elephant print), this is a lighter, more streamlined option. Pro: unique look within the AJ1 Low family. Con: premium price (~$115) for basic tech. Get it for the style, not the innovation. Alright, box is open – here's the "Air Jordan 1 Low" 'University Blue'. The color is vibrant in hand! Trying them on... yeah, it's a flat, firm ride. Let's be real: you buy this shoe for the look, not revolutionary comfort. The upper is simple and breaks in nicely. Visually, it's a home run; that low-profile shape is iconic. Compared to a bulkier Jordan 4, it's much sleeker. The pro is undeniable style. The potential con is the lack of support if you have wider feet. My take? If you love the Jordan 1 aesthetic but want a less-constricting summer option, this is your pick. Pure comfort chasers, skip it.

  • Shown: Military Black
  • Style: CT8532-104

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