The shape is on point. Sliding my foot in, the padding around the collar is minimal, which is my main gripe. They're lightweight and easy to style with almost anything. Versus a Dunk Low? The AJ1 Mid has more structure. Pro: Low-key, everyday sneaker. Con: Lack of premium materials. At this price in the "Jordan series", it's about the silhouette. Good for minimalists, not for comfort seekers. 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. Unboxing this new Air Jordan 1 Mid colorway... wow, the color-blocking is actually "fire". The leather has a nice sheen to it! On foot, the break-in period is real – you'll feel that around the pinky toe, no cap. It's a bit heavier than I remembered, but the silhouette is just iconic. The pros? Style, history, and endless outfit options. The cons? Arch support isn't the best, and the cushion is basic. For a sneakerhead wanting a classic Jordan vibe without the crazy resale? Perfect. For performance? Not even close. Alright, let’s get this box open. First impression? It’s the classic "air jordan 1 mid" silhouette, man. This ‘Black Toe’ colorway is just so clean and iconic right out of the box. The leather feels pretty decent for the $115 USD price tag, honestly. You instantly get that Jordan DNA—it’s a timeless piece. It’s not the OG High, but for many, this Mid version is just more accessible and easier to style daily.

  • Shown: Blank Canvas
  • Style: 384664-006

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