The colors are vibrant! On foot, they're true to the original 1's DNA: a bit heavy, very structured. The ankle support from the mid-cut is noticeable. Is it worth the ~$130? If you love the design language of the Jordan series, absolutely. It's a piece of history. But if you need all-day, walk-all-over-cushion... you might be disappointed. It's a legend in lifestyle wear, not in comfort tech. Final verdict on the "Air Jordan 1 Mid". For the price, it's a gateway into the Jordan series. The silhouette is iconic, and it's incredibly easy to style. The "downside" is the basic, unremarkable footbed. Compared to modern performance shoes, it feels dated. But that's not the point, right? It's a lifestyle icon. I'd recommend it to anyone wanting a piece of sneaker history on a budget. I'd "not" recommend it to anyone seeking cutting-edge comfort or tech. 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. Just got the Air Jordan 1 Mid "Chicago" in, and wow – that color blocking just pops on camera! Unboxing is always a vibe with this classic scheme. On-foot, the fit is snug (I went true to size), and they feel substantial, not super light. Comparing it to the Jordan 1 High? You're really just missing a bit of height around the ankle. The advantage here is often the price and availability. Great sneaker for collectors and casual wearers who want the look without the crazy resell price.

  • Shown: Royal
  • Style: CT8527-400

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