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. Honest review time. This is the core "Air Jordan 1 Low" in "White Gym Red." Opening it up, the build is consistent - no major flaws. On-foot feel is... classic. The cushioning is firm, not bouncy like modern trainers. The silhouette is _undeniably_ sharp though. Pros? Timeless look, easy to match. Cons? That break-in period can be tough on the heels. If you're new to the "Jordan 1" series and want an affordable entry point ($110), start here. Serious comfort-seekers, maybe skip it. Alright, so let's get straight into this pair of "Air Jordan 1 Low" 'University Blue'! First impression? The color-blocking is "super" clean, a classic Chicago-style mix with that nice pop of blue. Materials feel pretty standard for the price point - around "$110" - it's that familiar, sturdy leather. The shape is on point, "no" major flaws right out of the box. A solid start for any "Jordan" series fan. Yo, checking out this new 'Atmosphere' colorway of the Air Jordan 1 Low. First impression – the suede and leather combo looks premium in-hand! Sizing is spot on for me. Comparing it to the AJ1 High, it's obviously less restrictive around the ankle, which I prefer for all-day wear. It's a great summer shoe, but if you need ankle support for ball, look elsewhere.

  • Shown: Pine Green
  • Style: 555088-117

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