This isn't a "comfort-first" sneaker. Also, if you're a purest for the original 1985 High OG design, the slightly altered proportions of the Mid might bug you. But for most people wanting that AJ1 style? The Air Jordan 1 Mid is a fantastic, more affordable door into the Jordan series. Final verdict on the "Air Jordan 1 Mid"? It's a legend. This 'Chicago Black Toe' look is timeless. For around $120 USD, you get an iconic silhouette that works with jeans, joggers, you name it. The cons remain: break-in time and firm ride. But that's part of its DNA. I recommend it to anyone building a sneaker rotation who values style over supreme comfort. If you prioritize cushioning above all else, look elsewhere. Now, the cons — because nothing's perfect. That firm cushioning I mentioned? It's a deal-breaker if you prioritize plush comfort. Also, the toe box can feel a bit narrow for some foot shapes. And while the leather is decent, on some colorways it can be a bit stiff and crease noticeably. Just keeping it real. Let's talk about the "Air Jordan 1 Mid" 'University Blue' – a colorway that always looks good. Unboxing it, the white and blue combo is just crisp and classic. The materials are what you expect: durable, easy-to-clean leather. On foot, it's the same reliable experience: good arch support, break-in required for perfect flex. Styling-wise, this might be one of the most wearable Mids out there – pairs with jeans, shorts, you name it. Pro: Fantastic, crowd-pleasing colorway that's always in style. Con: Like all AJ1s, the toe creases pretty noticeably – that's part of the charm for some, a deal-breaker for others. I'd say this is ideal for someone wanting a fresh, clean sneaker that won't go out of fashion. If you're terrified of creases, maybe look at a different model.

  • Shown: Royal Toe
  • Style: CT8012-011

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