.. basically "nonexistent". It's a cupsole from the "1980s". If you're on your feet all day, these "aren't" your best bet. Also, the "toe box" creases "super" easily - that's just the nature of the leather. If you're a comfort-first sneakerhead, this might be a dealbreaker. Alright, let's unbox these "Air Jordan 1 Lows" in the classic ‘Black Toe’ colorway. First impression? The leather quality is solid for the $100 USD price point—not super-premium, but it has a nice grain. The iconic silhouette is "sharp" & the color-blocking is just timeless. It's a flawless entry into the "Jordan" series for daily wear. So I just unboxed this pair of 'Shadow' Air Jordan 1 Lows, and wow — the colorway is even better in person? The dark grey and black combo is super versatile & looks premium. Sliding them on, the fit is snug (I'd say TTS) and that low-cut profile is fantastic for ankle mobility. Compared to the AJ1 Highs, these are way more casual & easier to style with shorts. Major pro: they go with literally everything. The con? That flat, firm midsole. If you need plush cushioning, look elsewhere. For style points and everyday wear, though? These Jordan Lows are a total win. Alright, fresh pair of Air Jordan 1 Lows on the table. This 'Dark Powder Blue' version is so clean. Out of the box, everything looks neatly put together. Walking in them, the comfort is there - it's a simple, no-fuss feel. I think the low-cut design actually makes the shoe look sleeker on foot than in the box. Versus an AJ1 Mid, you're getting a very similar look but with a bit less material around the ankle. Pro? A fantastic balance of style and everyday wearability. Con? Some might find the sole a bit stiff initially. For a first Jordan, or a daily beater sneaker, this is a super solid choice at this price point.

  • Shown: Hyper Royal
  • Style: CT8527-100

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