This "Chicago Black Toe" look is fire, and at around $125 USD, it's way more accessible than an OG High. The leather quality is okay—it creases easily, which I don't mind. Compared to other Jordans, like a Jordan 4, these are much lighter and less bulky. Pro: Iconic style that goes with everything. Con: The flat outsole isn't great for wet surfaces. Recommended for collectors and casual wearers alike. Honestly, the Air Jordan 1 Mid fills a specific gap. It's more substantial than a low-top but less committing than a high-top. The ankle padding is minimal, so if you need serious ankle support for sports, look elsewhere. But for style? It's a home run. The colorways are often more accessible, and that price tag around $120 is easier to swallow. A definite recommend for casual wearers. 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. Got this Air Jordan 1 Mid "Shattered Backboard" inspired colorway in hand. The colors are vibrant! On foot, they're true to the original 1's DNA: a bit heavy, very structured. The ankle support from the mid-cut is noticeable. Is it worth the ~$130? If you love the design language of the Jordan series, absolutely. It's a piece of history. But if you need all-day, walk-all-over-cushion... you might be disappointed. It's a legend in lifestyle wear, not in comfort tech.

  • Shown: Space Jam
  • Style: AR0715-441

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