The "~$125 USD" tag is fair for what you get. Who isn't it for? Hardcore comfort-seekers, or basketball players looking for modern tech. This is a piece of history you walk in, not a 2024 performance beast. Check out this pair! The "'Banned' inspired colorway" on the "Air Jordan 1 Mid" just hits different on camera. Unboxing, the red just pops! On feet, the fit is true to size for me - good lockdown. It's not a heavy shoe, which I appreciate for all-day wear. Honestly, for under "$130", this is a solid pick if you dig the vibe but don't wanna chase High-top resale prices. It's a statement piece, for sure, without being "too" loud. Unboxing the 'Chicago Black Toe' styled Nike Air Jordan 1 Mid. Honestly? The color blocking is iconic — straight fire. Checking the details, stitching is clean. Wearing them, the toe box has decent room, which is good. On camera, that red, white, and black combo is just timeless. It’s a more affordable way (~$120 USD) to get a legendary look versus chasing a High OG. Pro? Instant style credibility and heritage appeal from the Jordan series. Con? Some might see it as a "consolation" version. I think it's perfect for fans of the classic design on a budget, not so much for those who only value the highest OG form. Opening the box on this Air Jordan 1 Mid 'Bred Toe'... wow, that color-blocking is "fire". Immediate impression is strong. Fit is snug, lockdown is good—typical AJ1 experience. On foot in real life, they look aggressive and sporty. Versus an all-red Mid, these have more classic contrast. Big pro? It brings a coveted OG-style color story to a more affordable model. Potential con? The stiff ankle collar might bother some. Priced around $125 USD, I'd recommend these to anyone who loves the 'Bred' theme but needs a more wallet-friendly option.

  • Shown: Taupe Haze
  • Style: CT8012-005

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