It immediately channels those OG Chicago/Black Toe vibes. On-foot, the support is notable, especially around the ankle. It's a classic basketball shoe feel, just higher off the ground than you might expect. Pro: Unbeatable style. Con: The ankle padding can feel a bit restrictive if you're not used to it. Definitely a must for AJ1 fans, maybe pass if you prefer low-tops. Unboxing this Air Jordan 1 Mid SE with the different materials... interesting! The suede/nubuck combo feels nice. First wear? The break-in is real, guys – give it a few wears. It's a bit clunky, but that's part of the charm. On foot, the Mid profile is actually more flattering for shorter fits than the High, IMO. Major pro: timeless design that goes with everything. Potential con: the ankle padding can feel rough at first. I'd say this is perfect for a style-focused wardrobe staple. Performance basketball players? Look at newer models. For the collectors on a budget, listen up. This "air jordan 1 mid" offers that iconic look without draining your wallet. The version I have is the 'Chicago Black Toe' inspired one. Construction is standard - nothing luxury, but it gets the job done. On feet, they feel... familiar. It's the same tooling as always. Compared to retro releases, you're sacrificing some material quality for accessibility. Pro: Iconic design. Con: You feel the cost-cutting. It's a gateway into the "Jordan series", ideal for new fans. Open box, and that new sneaker smell hits! The shape on these Mids is slightly bulkier than the OG Highs – you can see it in the toe box and collar. It's not bad, just different. Some colorways use softer leather than others, so check reviews! Overall, for a "Jordan series" entry-point, it delivers. It feels substantial in hand, not cheap. A solid first impression every time.

  • Shown: Infrared
  • Style: 555088-105

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