The "GS" version for my niece was a solid gift idea. The main "benefit" is the timeless design. On the flip side, the arch support is minimal—not ideal if you're on your feet all day. Compared to a Jordan 1 Low, the Mid offers a bit more structure. For $115-$135 USD, you're paying for the legacy and look. It's perfect for teens and sneakerheads who value style history. Let's talk about the elephant in the room... comparing it to the High Top. The Air Jordan 1 Mid lacks that top ankle strap and is, well, a mid-cut. For some purists, that's a deal-breaker. For me? I actually like the easier on-and-off. It's also usually more available and affordable. This 'Gym Red' version pops nicely and for $125, it's a steal if you dig the color-blocking. Okay, here's my "real" take on the "Air Jordan 1 Mid". Unboxing this "Light Smoke Grey" pair, the materials feel... acceptable. Not amazing, but good. The real magic happens on foot — the profile is just so photogenic from every angle. It's a lifestyle shoe that "performs" in photos. Pro? Timeless design that gets compliments. Con? The outsole is a bit slick on certain surfaces. Worth it? If your priority is a fashion staple from the Jordan catalog, 100%. For all-day walking comfort? Maybe look elsewhere. Let's get into these! This Air Jordan 1 Mid 'Royal' just arrived. The blue leather looks sharp in hand. Slipping them on... immediate feedback: they're supportive, but "man" that forefoot is stiff. The weight is noticeable – it's a substantial shoe. In natural light, the colors really shine. Compared to a Jordan 1 Low, the Mid offers more ankle... "presence". Love it for the classic aesthetic and versatility. Don't love it for long-distance walking. Verdict? A solid pick for casual wear, but know what you're signing up for: style over supreme comfort.

  • Shown: Blank Canvas
  • Style: DJ5718-300

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