Compared to other Jordan 1s, this Mid version is more affordable at $125. Pros: easy to match and durable. Cons: the ankle padding could be softer. It's a go-to for casual sneakerheads, but if you're into high-performance basketball shoes, this isn't it. A solid, everyday option from the Jordan lineup. First look at this 'Light Smoke Grey' "Air Jordan 1 Mid" – the color blocking is absolutely fire in person, way better than on-screen. The build quality is on point; no glue stains or messy stitching on my pair. Once laced up, they offer that familiar, secure feel – nothing revolutionary, but reliably comfortable for walking. Comparing it to other Jordan models, the Mid sits nicely between the bulky AF1 and the more streamlined Dunk. The advantage? Incredible colorway that's easier to cop than many High OG releases. The drawback? That stiff ankle collar might need a short break-in period. My verdict? A must for colorway collectors and fans of grey-toned sneakers. Probably not the best choice if you have very wide feet, as the toe box is standard. Here’s the real talk, though. The cushioning in the "Air Jordan 1 Mid" is not modern. It’s that traditional, firmer feel. If you’re coming from React or Air Max, you’ll notice the difference immediately. That’s the trade-off for the timeless look. So, if all-day cloud-like comfort is your top priority, maybe look elsewhere. But for style? It delivers. On foot, the silhouette is just undeniably cool. It gives you that slight lift and the ankle support feels more substantial than a low-top. I'm wearing this "Light Smoke Grey" pair, and the quality is surprisingly decent for the price. Is it the "best" leather? No. But it looks great and creases in a classic way. For the cost, the Air Jordan 1 Mid delivers serious style per dollar.

  • Shown: Desert Elephant
  • Style: 555088-117

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