The "Air Jordan 1 Low" in "Black White" is a workhorse. Unboxing is straightforward - you know what you're getting. On foot, they're comfortable "enough" for casual wear. The design is 10/10 for style. Compared to newer "Jordan" models, tech is basic. Pro: unmatched versatility and heritage. Con: basic comfort tech. At ~$110, it's a foundational sneaker for your rotation. I recommend it to almost anyone interested in sneaker culture. Don't recommend it as your only gym or running shoe. First lace-up of the "Air Jordan 1 Low" 'Starfish' and I'm digging the vibrancy. The comfort is "fine" - it's a flat, firm ride, which I don't mind for short walks. The real win is the silhouette; it's arguably "more" wearable for most people than the high-top. Who's it for? Anyone wanting a piece of Jordan series history in a low-profile package. Not for comfort-seekers. Checking out the "Air Jordan 1 Low" 'Sail & University Red.' The sail midsole gives it a vintage vibe right out of the box. The construction is solid. Wearing them, they're incredibly easy to just throw on and go – no fuss. They photograph really well, the colors are warm. It’s another strong, wearable entry in the Jordan series catalog. The good: effortless style. The not-so-good: you're paying for the name and look, not advanced features. For $120, I'd recommend it for casual wear enthusiasts. Hard pass for athletes or comfort-seekers. Alright, let's get into this 'Air Jordan 1 Low' in the University Blue colorway. First thing out of the box – man, the color blocking is just "clean", you know? The white leather panels make that blue really pop on camera. For around $110 USD, the materials feel pretty standard for a 'Jordan' low, nothing crazy, but the overall shape looks great. Honestly, a solid start to this classic silhouette.

  • Shown: Unc
  • Style: 308497-100

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