The color saturation in this 'Shadow' inspired cw is really nice. Once laced, they feel secure without being restrictive. They're not heavy at all, which I appreciate. Compared to a mid-top, you get more ankle freedom – a pro for some, a con for others. Main advantage is its iconic, versatile look. The potential issue? The leather can crease noticeably. A great pick for sneakerheads who wear their kicks. Alright, so first look out of the box? This "air jordan low 1" in the "University Blue" colorway is clean. The leather feels decent for the $115 price point, and the iconic silhouette is just… perfect. Honestly, it's a classic for a reason. Slapping these on, the fit is true to size with a snug, supportive wrap. It's a low-top, so you get that ankle freedom "immediately". For a casual wear or a light shootaround? Absolutely great. First thoughts on the Air Jordan Low 1 'University Blue'? The suede is decent—better than some Mids I've seen. That baby blue is so fresh for spring/summer. Sliding my foot in, the insole is pretty basic, but the overall fit is good. Styling these is a breeze; they look great with jeans or shorts. Versus a Jordan 1 High, you lose some of the dramatic look but gain wearability. Pro: fantastic seasonal color. Con: suede can be high-maintenance in bad weather. This is a great shoe for a collector wanting a pop of color or someone building a versatile rotation. Not a workhorse sneaker. For anyone debating between mids and lows, here’s my take. The "Air Jordan Low 1" offers a different vibe — it’s less restrictive, more breathable for warmer days. The silhouette looks great from every angle on camera, too. The 'White Cement Grey' pair I got for $135 is super easy to style. Honestly, if you own a lot of high-tops, adding a low is a smart move for variety.

  • Shown: Stealth
  • Style: CT8527-115

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