The leather is decent—not the highest tier, but perfectly fine for the price point (~$120). Honestly, compared to some recent AJ1 Highs, the quality here feels pretty consistent. A major pro? The Mid's slightly lower cut can be easier to style with certain pants. Love it for a spring/summer vibe. Initial thoughts on foot with the "Air Jordan 1 Mid" 'Paris Saint-Germain' collab? The materials feel premium. The fit is secure, but break-in is required – no doubt. Visually, the mix of grey, pink, and black is unique. It stands out from the typical "Jordan series" releases. Worth the price? For PSG fans or AJ1 completists, yes. For someone wanting a comfy, go-anywhere shoe, probably not. It's a specific vibe. Alright, let's unbox these. First impression? The "Air Jordan 1 Mid" 'White Gym Red' looks "super" clean in hand. The leather quality is actually decent for the $125 price point – it's not buttery, but it's solid. Putting them on, you instantly get that classic, slightly stiff "AJ1" feel. It's a timeless silhouette, man. Perfect for a crisp, simple fit. 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.

  • Shown: Desert Moss
  • Style: 555088-140

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