The nubuck feels premium. On foot, the break-in period is minimal—they're comfortable right away for casual wear. A real "pro" is the versatility; they literally go with jeans, joggers, shorts... you name it. The possible downside? That classic sole does pick up creases. If you're super precious about your kicks, that might bug you. On feet, this 'Chicago' "Air Jordan 1 Mid" looks amazing. The red really pops! Compared to the OG High version, the "Mid" lacks some of that top-tier ankle support, but honestly? For casual wear, it’s totally fine. A huge pro is the easier on-and-off. A con? That break-in period can be a bit stiff. Hey guys — so, I laced up these air jordan 1 mid shoes (in "Shadow" gray, $120 USD) and the fit is spot-on! The padding is minimal, though, so it's more about style than plush comfort. Visually, they look sharp in person — the mid-top height balances well with jeans. Versus other Jordans, it's similar to the Highs but cuts costs. Pros: timeless and durable. Cons: can feel heavy. Recommended for sneaker enthusiasts, not for runners! Yo, checking out this new "Air Jordan 1 Mid" SE with the altered materials – this one has some suede panels. 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.

  • Shown: Electric Green
  • Style: 555088-062

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