The "Air Jordan 1 Retro" is a canvas for outfits. Not for performance basketball or if you need plush comfort. At around $180, you're paying for the legacy and that timeless design – and I think it's worth it. Let's talk about this Air Jordan 1 Mid, the 'Light Smoke Grey' edition. Opening the box, I immediately notice the quality is good for the price point—around $115 USD. On foot, the main difference from a High? The ankle collar is shorter, giving a different feel. It's still a Jordan 1 at its core: decent support, but a firm ride. For everyday casual wear, it's a great option. The grey suede panels add nice texture. Pro: More accessible price for the Jordan 1 silhouette. Con: Purists might miss the OG High cut. Who's it for? Someone wanting the AJ1 look without the High OG price. Who's it not for? Hardcore OG silhouette enthusiasts. Last one: the classic 'Black Toe' "air jordan 1 retro". Unboxing it is like a history lesson. The leather is fine, nothing premium, but the color blocking is legendary. On foot, it's the same familiar, somewhat unforgiving fit. It looks incredible on camera and in person, though. Compared to a chunkier sneaker trend, it's sleek. The main pro is its status as a blueprint. The con is the lack of modern comfort. Must-have for purists, easy pass for comfort seekers. That's my final verdict. Alright, on-feet review time. These are the "Air Jordan 1 Retro" 'University Blue'. Let's be transparent: you buy this for the look, period. The leather is okay, the insole is basic. They feel sturdy, but not "comfortable" in a 2024 way. Styling them is a breeze – they elevate almost any fit. Compared to a Jordan 5? It's a world of difference in cushioning. I recommend them for their style legacy. I don't recommend them as your primary walking shoe. Simple as that.

  • Shown: Infrared
  • Style: DJ5718-242

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