Opening the box, the colors are "bright" and fun for summer. The Low cut changes the "whole" vibe – it's more casual, less basketball. Slipping them on, they're "easier" to get on/off than Highs and feel a "touch" more flexible. The "big plus" is the versatility with shorts. The "minus"? You lose some of that iconic high-top profile. Comparing it to an "Air Force 1 Low", the "Jordan 1 Low" has a narrower, sleeker toe box. Perfect for a relaxed, everyday sneaker, less ideal if you're chasing that classic "1985" look. After wearing these Jordan 1s for a bit, the leather does break in nicely. The fit is true to size, good width. The grip is decent on dry surfaces. Is it worth the price? For this colorway and quality, yes – if you love the design. But at retail or slightly above; I wouldn't pay a massive resell premium for the basic tech inside. Alright, so here we are with the "Jordan Air 1" in the new "Light Smoke Grey". Unboxing it, the materials are "really" nice – that suede is soft! The "color-blocking" is clean and versatile. On foot, it's the classic AJ1 feel: secure, supportive, but let's be real – not "plush". Comparing it to, say, a Jordan 5, this is "much" lighter and more minimal. The "big win" is its everyday wearability. The "potential downside"? That white midsole will get dirty fast if you're not careful. Totally worth it for a fresh, wearable colorway, but maybe not for your beater shoes. 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.

  • Shown: Defining Moments
  • Style: 555088-302

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