JJ's "Was" Prices Check Out, and Our Own Filter Is Hiding 1,454 of Its Real Cuts

6 September 2026

Yesterday we audited Sapphire's sale and found its "was" price was one the brand had never actually charged in our 90-day record. Today we ran the same test on J. Junaid Jamshed, and the result came out the other way.

Of 3,544 cuts, 3,109 (88%) carry a "was" price identical to what we ourselves recorded for that item.

Take the beige jacquard kurta: our record shows Rs 9,490 yesterday, the brand's anchor says Rs 9,490, and today's price is Rs 2,847. That 70% is entirely real, not a sticker number.

And now the part that counts against us

Our own rule is that if a "was" price exceeds three times the current price, that discount does not enter our averages, because such a figure often exists only on the label.

But JJ's 70% tier lands at exactly 3.3×. So our filter throws out 1,454 of its cuts, and our own price history says those anchors are correct.

Which means: the filter built to protect shoppers from invented "was" prices is also hiding genuine 70% discounts from them. Our averages are understating this sale.

Why write this down? Because if we audit other people's pricing, we have to report the flaws in our own rule too. The fix is now clear: instead of a flat 3× ceiling, accept any anchor that matches our own recorded history, whatever the multiple. That work is underway.

For now: if you are looking at JJ's 70% items, our data says the anchor is genuine, but remember that most of them are not in stock.

Our methodology · Yesterday's Sapphire audit

Data: TrendCompare 22-brand hourly tracker. Figures count only products confirmed on the brand's own site within the last 7 days. Full methodology.

🐦 X: #SaleHonesty · @Trendcompare