For a $180 price tag, some might expect softer leather. Also, if you have wider feet, the break-in could be tougher. This isn't a "slip-on-and-go" comfort shoe right away. You gotta wear them in to get that perfect, molded-to-your-foot feel. Putting these 'University Blue' Jordan 1s on camera... wow, they photograph beautifully! The suede accents add great texture. In hand, the build quality is excellent. A clear pro is the shoe's cultural impact & sheer style points. The con? Everyone has them. If you want something unique, this might not be it. But for a classic blue & white sneaker, it's a home run. What's good everyone? Unboxing the "Mid" version of the "Jordan 1" in this "Shadow" palette. First thing I noticed: the price is "friendlier" – around "$135" – but the materials feel a "step down" from the Highs. The shape is "slightly" different, a bit chunkier. On foot, the comfort level is "similar": firm. The "main benefit" here is accessibility; it's a more affordable way to get the iconic look. The "trade-off" is prestige and often material quality. Honestly, if you're on a budget or prefer a "slightly" less restrictive collar, the Mid is fine. Purists will always choose the High OG. Just copped the "Stage Haze" "Air Jordan 1" – and wow, the quality is "surprisingly" good! The leather has a nice grain, and the cracked leather overlays add cool texture. Throwing them on, they feel "exactly" like you'd expect: a bit rigid, but that ankle support is top-tier. Visually, this high-top "silhouette" is "unbeatable" for style. Compared to a Dunk High, the "Jordan 1" has more of that "bulky" heritage look. "Love" the mix of materials. "Don't love" that they crease easily – but that's part of the charm, right? Great for detail lovers, not for those who want a pristine shoe forever.

  • Shown: Desert Moss
  • Style: DH9696-100

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