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 directly to an AJ1 High? You lose some of that dramatic, high-top look. But you gain easier on-and-off and a slightly more casual vibe. For $120-130 USD, the Mid is often the smarter buy. My final take? The Air Jordan 1 Mid is perfect for sneaker newcomers, or anyone who wants a versatile, iconic shoe without breaking the bank. It's a workhorse. Okay, here's my real take on the "Air Jordan 1 Mid". You're not getting groundbreaking tech here – it's a 1985 design, updated. The ankle padding is thinner than the Highs, which I actually prefer for casual wear. It's a style-first shoe, part of the core "Jordan series". At around $120 USD, it's an accessible entry point. Fantastic for beginners in the sneaker game. Not so fantastic for performance basketball – that's not what it's for anymore. Slipping these "Air Jordan 1 Mids" on… immediate thoughts? The fit is true to size for me. The ankle collar is a bit lower than the OG High, which I actually "prefer" for daily wear – easier on the ankles! The cushioning is… well, it’s firm. You're not buying these for a cloud-like ride, let’s be real.

  • Shown: Game Royal
  • Style: 555088-037

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