I wore these with tapered sweats and the look was "clean". The design is so strong it elevates simple outfits. Performance-wise? It's a 1985 basketball shoe — treat it as such. Great for walking, not for running or hooping seriously. Ideal for the style-focused wearer who values heritage over hype. On feet, the look is just timeless. This particular colorway—mostly white with grey and that black Swoosh—is incredibly versatile. You can wear these with "literally" anything. Comparing it to the OG High, the main difference is obviously the collar height... and the price. The "Air Jordan Mid 1" often sits at a more accessible price, which is a huge plus for a lot of people. Alright, so the "Air Jordan Mid 1" just landed. First impression? This ‘Racer Blue’ colorway "really" pops in-hand. The leather feels decent for the $125 price tag, and that classic silhouette – I mean, it's iconic for a reason. Putting them on, the fit is true-to-size with a snug, comfortable wrap. Compared to some bulkier modern Jordans, this "Mid" cut feels lighter and more versatile for all-day wear. For me, the look is the biggest pro. The con? The cushioning is basic—don't expect Boost-like comfort. Verdict: Great for style-first collectors or casual wear. Not for performance ball or if you need max cushion. How do they look on camera? Honestly, the Mid cut is super versatile. Sometimes Highs can look a bit bulky, but the "Air Jordan Mid 1" sits just right. This "Neutral Grey" pair I'm wearing is "clean". It works with jeans, joggers—you name it. The design is timeless; it’s why this model stays relevant. Compared to a Dunk, the toe box is slightly roomier, which I prefer. A definite "pro" is its effortless style. A "con"? The flat, non-supportive insole might not be for everyone with foot issues.

  • Shown: Pine Green
  • Style: 308497-060

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