Opening the box, the texture mix really makes it pop, giving a premium feel over the standard all-leather versions. Sliding my foot in, the fit is consistent: snug in the heel, roomy in the toe box. Wearing them, the SE details get you compliments – it stands out from the basic Mids. A huge pro is the unique look without a crazy price hike (around $125). A potential con? Suede can be harder to maintain than plain leather. In my opinion, if you already have a core "Jordan 1 Mid" colorway and want something with more character, this SE is a great pick. If you're rough on your shoes or live in a rainy area, maybe reconsider. The durability on these seems great. The materials, while not luxury, can take a beating. I’ve worn my older "Air Jordan 1 Mid" pairs for years! They crease, sure—it’s part of the look. A potential downside? The ankle collar can dig in a bit if you have sensitive skin… wearing higher socks solves that. Overall, they're low-maintenance sneakers. Ideal for students or anyone who wants a tough, stylish shoe that lasts. 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. Is it perfect? Nah. The main con is the materials can be hit or miss. Some colorways use nicer leather, others use stiffer stuff. This one's okay. Also, if you have wide feet, go up half a size for sure. The break-in period is real. But once they mold to your foot, they're great. It's a classic for a reason, even in its Mid form.

  • Shown: Desert Elephant
  • Style: DZ5485-303

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