Opening the box gives you that iconic vibe immediately – the red, black, and white just works. The build feels sturdy; no complaints for the price point. Slipping them on, the ankle collar is stiff initially, but it'll mold to your ankle. Compared to a true OG High 'Chicago,' you're missing some height and history, but the core style is 95% there for less money. The big pro is capturing that legendary look affordably. The trade-off? You might get "it's not the High" comments from sneakerheads. In my view, this is perfect for fans of the Chicago color blocking who want a more accessible and often more available option. Hardcore OG collectors will likely still hold out for the High. Comparing it to other Jordans? The Mid sits, well, in the middle. It’s more affordable than most Highs (this pair is $115), and it’s got more presence than a Low for me. The build quality on this specific ‘Mid’ is good—no major glue stains or anything. A clear advantage is the classic look without the classic High-top price hike, which is a huge pro for a lot of sneakerheads on a budget. Who should maybe avoid it? If you need plush comfort above all else, look elsewhere. Also, if you’re a purest who "only" rocks OG High tops, the "air jordan 1 mid" might not be for you. The lower cut is a distinct look that some just don’t prefer. And if you want the latest tech, this isn’t it. It’s a fashion-first, heritage sneaker, through and through. Unboxing this "Laser Blue" pair was a vibe! The colors really pop in person. On foot, the fit is true to size with a snug, secure wrap. I love Mids for casual wear because they're slightly less bulky than the Highs. The main advantage? You get that iconic Jordan 1 look, often for less money and with more unique color stories. It's a win for collectors on a budget.

  • Shown: Neutral Grey
  • Style: 555088-711

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