The 'Bred' colorway, especially, just has that "undeniable" aura. Cons? As mentioned, the footbed is stiff—break-in time is real. Also, at around $180, it's not a "performance" shoe, so manage your expectations for all-day wear. Okay, initial thoughts on the "Air Jordan 1 Retro" 'Stage Haze'. This white, grey, and crackled leather pair cost me $180. Right out of the box, the materials feel interesting—that cracked leather gives it texture. The shape is nice and classic. Putting them on? Standard AJ1 experience: snug forefoot, supportive heel, firm midsole. They're not heavy, but you feel planted. Styling-wise, they're a dream for summer fits—super bright and photogenic. Compared to a chunkier sneaker, these feel more refined. Major pro is the unique material play. Potential con? That white leather will get dirty "fast". I recommend these if you like standing out with a classic model. If you're rough on your kicks, maybe think twice. After wearing them for a bit, I appreciate the break-in process. They do get more comfortable! The leather softens up, molding to your foot. Is it worth the ~$180 USD? For a sneakerhead wanting a classic, yes. For someone seeking a performance running shoe feel? Absolutely not. It's all about understanding what you're buying here. Reviewing the Air Jordan 1 Retro High OG "Dark Mocha". Man, this is a popular one for a reason. The brown and black suede/leather combo is so rich and premium-looking. On foot, they feel substantial and well-made. However, like most AJ1s, the break-in is real – expect some heel stiffness initially. For $170, you're getting a modern classic that works with almost any fall/winter fit. It's a great alternative to the classic "Bred" color blocking. Probably not the best choice if you're looking for a breathable summer shoe, though.

  • Shown: Royal
  • Style: CT8012-116

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