Does a primary source confirm the two-hop Mamluk card-suit renaming mechanism (coins → polo-sticks → batons)?

claim-mamluk-card-suit-renamed-twice-coins-polo-sticks-batons rests on Tier 4 Wikipedia ("Batons (suit)") for its core mechanism claim: that Chinese money-suited cards' coin suit was misread as polo-sticks entering the Islamic world, and that the polo-stick suit was itself misread and re-illustrated as cudgels/batons entering Europe. Simon Wintle's own reference site (entity-simon-wintle, Tier 2) confirms the Mamluk suit structure (coins, cups, swords, polo-sticks) exists and its polo association, but does not itself state the resemblance-based renaming mechanism at either hop.

What would answer it. Read one of the two named academic sources behind the standard account:

• L.A. Mayer, Mamluk Playing Cards (Bollingen Series, 1971) — the specific academic monograph on the Mamluk deck.
• Michael Dummett's card-history scholarship (e.g. his work on tarot and playing-card history) — named in secondary discussion as underlying the standard Mamluk-to-European transmission account.

Either would let the claim's source_tier move from 4 to 1–2 and clear the sourcing floor sources.md sets for technical-mechanism claims.

Why it matters. This is one of only two new legs (with question-verify-chess-bishop-renaming-primary-source) behind the vault's tally of "renamed for local resemblance" instances tracked at question-transmission-chains-renamed-for-local-resemblance-pattern; it is also the more structurally interesting leg, since the mechanism appears to fire twice in series on one artifact's route rather than once — worth confirming before leaning on it as evidence the mechanism is a "default behavior" rather than a single coincidence dressed up twice.