The leather has a nice grain, and the silhouette is, of course, legendary. On feet, they're snug (I went TTS) and feel planted. For YouTube shots? The Mid profile is super flattering on camera. A key "pro" is the vast array of colorways available in the Mid cut versus some harder-to-find Highs. On the flip side, the ankle padding is minimal. So, who are these for? Style-focused folks. Not for comfort-tech seekers. At ~"$120 USD", it's a style investment. Comparing it directly to my Jordan 1 Highs – the most obvious difference is the height, obviously. The "Air Jordan 1 Mid" lacks that top eyelet and the extra ankle padding. For some, that's a downside for lockdown; for others, it's a style preference. I find the Mids often have more accessible colorways and a slightly lower price point (like this $125 one), which is a huge plus for building a collection without breaking the bank. On foot, the fit is true to size – nice and snug. The padded collar is a nice touch on this "Mid" model. It feels secure. Visually, the shorter cut can make your legs look a bit longer (a plus!). Compared to chunky sneakers, it's sleek. The main advantage is that classic profile. Disadvantage? The outsole traction is just okay for wet surfaces. Just unboxed, and I'm digging the simplicity. This "Nike Air Jordan 1 Mid" isn't trying too hard—it's just a well-executed, classic sneaker. Wearing them, you feel that legacy. The footbed is firm, and the toe box has a good amount of room. On camera, the clean lines pop. Compared to pricier Jordan 1 releases, the materials might be a grade lower, but for daily wear? More than sufficient. "Good for": people who want a piece of sneaker culture that's wearable every day. "Not for": anyone expecting a super-soft, engineered comfort experience. It's a style-first shoe, period.

  • Shown: White Oreo
  • Style: 378037-117

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