Opening the box, it's exactly what you expect: crisp white and black. On feet? They look _clean_ on camera and in person. Compared to a mid or high-top, the low-cut gives you more ankle freedom. Major plus: goes with literally everything. Downside: they'll show creases. At around $110, it's a staple. Not for perfectionists who hate wear & tear. Comparing it to other "Jordan" lows, like the AJ1 Low OG vs. the more common retro versions... the materials can vary. This specific colorway feels decent. The shape is nice and classic. It doesn't have that super-chunky "SB" tongue, which I personally prefer for a cleaner look. Here we go – fresh out the box, the leather has a nice sheen to it. The Air Jordan 1 Low design is just timeless, you know? Sliding my foot in, the break-in is almost non-existent, which is great. On-foot look is clean and works with virtually any fit – jeans, joggers, you name it. Compared to newer Jordan lows, the tooling and feel are nearly identical – it's a consistent formula. Pro: Unmatched versatility and style history. Con: They're not a "comfort" sneaker by 2024 standards. At this price point in the Jordan series, they're a must-have for style. I'd avoid if your priority is cloud-like comfort from the get-go. Yo, check out this "Air Jordan 1 Low" 'UNC' pair. The Carolina blue just "hits" different in person, right? The craftsmanship is pretty standard for this model – no complaints. Wearing them, they feel lighter than my high-tops, which I actually prefer for all-day wear. The flat profile looks great in photos. It's a straightforward shoe: pro is the iconic, versatile look. Con is the basic, old-school tech inside. At around $115, it's a solid pickup for Jordan fans who want a breathable option, but not for people seeking innovation.

  • Shown: Midnight Navy
  • Style: DH7138-006

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