The color is rich. On-foot feel is typical: secure, flat, and lightweight. Compared to a Jordan 1 Mid, the height difference is noticeable—much easier to slip on/off. The优点 is the bold colorway that still feels classic. The缺点? Not much arch support—something to note if you have foot issues. For $115 USD, it’s a great way to add a pop of color to your rotation. Probably not for your "only" pair of sneakers. My final take? I'm keeping these "Air Jordan 1 Lows" in my rotation. For around $110-$130 USD, you get an iconic piece of sneaker history that's incredibly easy to wear. Yes, the break-in is real, and no, they're not pillows on your feet. But the style points are through the roof. It's a solid, no-brainer pickup for most collections. Finally, the "Chicago" "Air Jordan 1 Low". The heritage is undeniable. Putting them on gives you that iconic vibe without the height of the OG. The leather is stiff at first but will mold to your foot. Is it worth it? For a classic colorway at a lower price point than the Highs... "absolutely". It's perfect for collectors and casual fans alike. Just don't expect cloud-like comfort. Alright, so I just got these Air Jordan 1 Lows in, and first off, the leather on this specific colorway is actually pretty nice – it’s not that stiff plastic-y feel, which is a great start. Unboxing this classic silhouette, you immediately recognize the timeless design. On feet, they’re exactly what you expect: comfortable for all-day wear, light, and the ankle collar feels fine. The main pro here is versatility; you can literally wear these with anything. A con? The cushioning is basic – don't expect anything bouncy. At around $100 USD, they're a solid entry into the Jordan series. I'd recommend them for casual wear, but not for anyone needing serious support or modern tech.

  • Shown: Royal Toe
  • Style: 555088-135

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