Catalog listings of former introductions are not an accurate yardstick to use to gauge "priciness".
A popular northern hybridizer might require 4 or more years to build up enough stock for introduction. If the daylily sells well, there may be only a few fans held back. What would be the point in lowering the price if the available stock doesn't support the demand? If anything, the asking price should be a bit higher until the variety hits the secondary market. (often this is actually the case)
Also, many growers don't care to continuously micromanage their websites, and a busy hybridizer might just be content to let the prices coast as they are until stock begins to overrun space. Most full-time hybridizers are plenty busy, and garden visitors will buy many of these plants, especially if point-of-sale concessions are negotiated. This keeps stock low.
When comparing ones own seedlings to plants in commerce, it's helpful to keep in mind that there is a 4+ year gap between first bloom and formal introduction. So, if my backyard daylily seedling still looks distinctive and superior 4 years later, then I might be able to say I've done something special. Otherwise, I've created a variety that may not be available on the market currently, (which is always advantageous in hybridizing) but is only "superior" in my little microcosm. I have a couple of these, which are similar to things introduced in the past 7 years or so, but their value to me lies in their early and cool morning opening and consistently symmetrical form, not because they'd be "amazing" to people in more favorable daylily climates who don't have these problems.
