This triple-white "jordan air force 1" is a commitment to keeping them clean, haha! For "$135 USD", you're paying for that iconic look. On foot, the ankle padding is nice & thick, giving good support. It’s a different vibe from a Jordan 1 High – chunkier, more street-level. A straight-up classic. On foot, the look is undeniable. This 'Chicago' colorway of the "Jordan Air Force 1" "pops" in natural light — perfect for summer fits. The design is so versatile. Compared to a Jordan 1? The AF1 has a chunkier, more casual profile (which I prefer for all-day wear). It's a style staple, for sure. Just copped this new colorway of the "Jordan Air Force 1", and I'm impressed. The leather quality on this specific release is actually really good for the price point— nice and tumbled. On feet, the comfort is standard AF1: supportive, stable, but break-in is needed for that perfect fit. Visually, it’s a tank of a shoe & looks great in photos with its crisp lines. I’d say these are better for style than performance basketball, clearly. Great for collectors of the Jordan line who appreciate the classics. Not so great for runners or minimalist sneaker fans. Let's talk about the leather on this Jordan Air Force 1. Unboxing, the grain is smooth and has a premium sheen. On foot, the leather needs a few wears to soften up—it's a bit rigid initially. In natural light, the color (let's say "Sail") looks so good and will age beautifully. Versus a synthetic-leather AF1, this is a step up in quality. The clear pro is the better materials that'll develop a nice patina. The con is the higher maintenance and break-in time. For roughly $160, I believe this premium leather Jordan Air Force 1 is worth it for sneakerheads who appreciate materials. If you want a no-fuss, beat-it-up shoe, the standard version is more practical.

  • Shown: Fire Red
  • Style: CT8012-011

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