Review methodology

How we test

Our testing team handles reviewed pairs at the bench and identifies whether each pair was purchased or supplied. The sequence below is the same for a Jordan 1 Low and a Jordan 4 Retro.

• Order and timing. We log the order date, the shipping method, the agent fee and the hours from checkout to doorstep. Parcels are photographed before opening.

• Packaging. Box condition, label match against the size tag, tissue and paper stuffing, and whether the lid print lines up with the release data.

• Weight. Each shoe is weighed separately on a 0.1 g scale. A left-right gap above 12 g is recorded for further inspection; the weight difference alone does not establish its cause.

• Measurements. Outsole length and width with a 150 mm caliper, plus internal length on a Brannock device at three positions.

• Fit check. Two testers with different foot shapes — narrow, normal arch and wide, flat arch — wear each pair for ten days and 20 km of city pavement.

• Stress. 40 flex cycles on the rig, a midsole compression check before and after, and a crease assessment on the toe box after wear.

• Construction and label checks. Stitch density per inch, tongue tag font, Jumpman embroidery spacing, midsole paint line, and box label cross-match.

• Comparison table. Each pair sits beside two prior-year equivalents on price, weight, measured length and wear notes.

Scoring

Scores use the full five-point scale: 5 excellent, 4 good, 3 adequate, 2 poor, 1 very poor. A pair loses points for a loose left-right weight gap, an outsole that wears through early, sharp heel slip, or an authentication check we cannot clear. It gains points for accurate sizing against the manufacturer chart, stable cushioning after 20 km, and clean finishing at the stitch line.

When a score moves, the revision note is dated and the old score stays visible.

Comparison scope

Identify the silhouette, variant, size and purchasing channel. State fit measurement methods and wear duration. Record box, labels and condition as observations rather than proof of authenticity. Price comparisons need the date, currency, condition and included fees. Authentication conclusions require suitable evidence and a stated method; photographs alone are inconclusive. Do not promote counterfeit goods or imply brand approval.

The review identifies the sample, dates, conditions and any steps omitted. A hands-on claim requires documented inspection or use; desk research is labelled. Scoring uses the complete 1-to-5 scale with the criteria and evidence explained, including unfavorable findings and missing information.