This colorway is a simple 'Black & White'. Opening it up, the construction looks good – no major flaws. The immediate on-foot feel is familiar: secure, no-slip fit. The weight is negligible, which is nice. Styling-wise, you can't go wrong with a black and white shoe; it's a wardrobe staple. Next to an AJ1 Mid, the difference is purely in height and sometimes materials. The advantage here is the classic, low-key style. The downside? That firm, traditional basketball shoe feel. Ideal for someone building a sneaker collection, not for someone seeking a cloud-like walking shoe. Checking out this "air jordan 1 low" with the “Crater” sole—interesting twist! The upper has recycled materials, which is cool. Aesthetics? It’s a chunky, outdoorsy take on the classic. On feet, they feel slightly different: the sole is a bit more forgiving & has great grip. They’re definitely heavier than a standard Low, though. Visually, they add some cool texture to a fit. Pro: Unique design & more functional sole. Con: The weight & bulkier silhouette might not be for purists. At around $130 USD, it’s a premium. I’d say it’s for someone who wants a durable, statement AJ1 Low. Probably not for fans of the OG slim profile. On-feet review time: The weight is nice and light, which I love for a low-top. The heel Air unit provides "just enough" cushion for walking around. Compared to some modern lifestyle shoes, the "Air Jordan 1 Low" is less padded, but that's part of its classic charm. Comparing it to other Jordans? It's interesting. Versus a Jordan 1 High, you lose some ankle support (obviously) and that "statement" look. But you gain a ton of wearability. Next to something like a Jordan 4 or 5? The "Air Jordan 1 Low" feels minimal and simple. It's a different tool for a different job – more of a daily driver.

  • Shown: Shadow
  • Style: CT8529-410

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