The "suede" hits and leather quality are "impressive" right out of the box. On feet, they look "expensive" and go with "almost" any fit. Compared to a Travis Scott collab, this is a "much" more understated, mature take. The "pro" is its incredible versatility for a high-top. The "con" is that it's another brown/black shoe in a sea of them. At "retail ($170)", it's an easy recommend for anyone wanting a premium, daily wearer. It's not the most "exciting" release, but sometimes that's exactly what you need. Alright, so first look at these Jordan Air 1 Highs in the 'Dark Mocha' colorway? The leather quality is actually really nice – soft, minimal creasing right out of the box. The color blocking is iconic, obviously. For $185, the materials feel premium. My initial impression is super solid; it's a clean, wearable iteration of a classic. So, here’s my take on the Jordan 1 Low 'UNC'. The lows are having a moment! First, the Carolina blue is just vibrant. On foot, they're lightweight & super easy to slip on & off. Compared to the highs, it’s a much more casual, summer-ready vibe. The advantage? Ultimate wearability. The drawback? Less ankle support, obviously. At $100 USD, it's a great entry point into the jordan air 1 universe. Highly recommended for a low-top sneaker fan. Not for those wanting the high-top basketball heritage feel. What's up, everyone? Just copped the Jordan Air 1 'Light Smoke Grey'. First impression? Super clean & versatile colorway for about $170. Sliding them on... you get that classic, slightly stiff jordan air 1 feel – it's not plush, but it's "solid". The ankle collar gives great support. The grey suede is "chef's kiss" but requires care. Love 'em for casual fits. If you need crazy comfort or hate suede maintenance, look elsewhere. A great entry into the Jordan series for sure.

  • Shown: Black Toe
  • Style: CZ6509-100

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