This 'Chicago' inspired colorway pops! The build feels good, not cheap. Wearing them, they're true to size with a snug forefoot. Compared to modern Jordan models, these are flat and firm – not for long walks, in my opinion. But for looking fresh? 10/10. Definitely a closet staple. Alright, let's unbox these! First impressions - this "Air Jordan 1 Mid" in the 'Metallic Silver' colorway is clean. The leather feels decent for the $120 USD price point, not super premium, but it has a nice sheen. That classic silhouette is just "timeless" - you can't go wrong with it. Straight out of the box, it's a solid pickup for the collection. Here's my take after a full day in these "Air Jordan 1 Mids". The "GS" version for my niece was a solid gift idea. The main "benefit" is the timeless design. On the flip side, the arch support is minimal—not ideal if you're on your feet all day. Compared to a Jordan 1 Low, the Mid offers a bit more structure. For $115-$135 USD, you're paying for the legacy and look. It's perfect for teens and sneakerheads who value style history. Yo, checking out this new "Air Jordan 1 Mid" SE with the altered materials – this one has some suede panels. Opening the box, the texture mix really makes it pop, giving a premium feel over the standard all-leather versions. Sliding my foot in, the fit is consistent: snug in the heel, roomy in the toe box. Wearing them, the SE details get you compliments – it stands out from the basic Mids. A huge pro is the unique look without a crazy price hike (around $125). A potential con? Suede can be harder to maintain than plain leather. In my opinion, if you already have a core "Jordan 1 Mid" colorway and want something with more character, this SE is a great pick. If you're rough on your shoes or live in a rainy area, maybe reconsider.

  • Shown: Gold Hoops
  • Style: 384664-006

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