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. Let's compare for a sec: if you're coming from a more modern Jordan— like a cushioned 13 or a 35— the "Jordan 1" will feel flat and stiff, no question. But that’s not its purpose! Compared to other retro models, it's similar to a Dunk in weight and feel. Its strength is in its timeless look and cultural weight, not tech innovation. That's the key difference right there. Okay, the 'Stage Haze' Air 1 is out of the box. The mismatched leather and suede panels are really cool in person—very unique! On foot, they feel standard for an Air 1: snug fit, break-in needed. The design looks way better on foot than in the box, honestly. Versus a all-leather pair, these have more visual texture. Pros? Unique design that stands out. Cons? Suede can be a hassle to maintain. At $180, it's a fair ask for a special release. This one's for the person who wants something different in their Jordan series collection. Not for someone who wants simple and easy. Alright, let's get into these Jordan Air 1s in the 'Chicago' colorway. First off, the box is classic & the leather quality? Honestly, solid for a GR. That bright white & "Fire Red" combo just pops on camera! Sizing is TTS for me. The silhouette is, of course, iconic — but the real test is on-foot... which brings me to my next point.

  • Shown: White Oreo
  • Style: 378037-003

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