My information is that the 7199 carried at least these names on the bottle: Sylvania, RCA, GE, Phillips, JAN Phillips, Raytheon, Westinghouse, Dyna and Dynaco. There may have been others. The Sovtek version was not really a 7199, but rather a re-pined, other triode-pentode tube. Of the tubes that carried both a triode and pentode circuit in the same bottle, the 7199 was the only one that was especially designed for audio application. Among its salient features was minimal noise. And, of all the tubes that the Dyna design team tested and evaluated, the Sylvania was selected for reasons of being marginally quieter than the runner-up — the RCA. Thus Sylvanias were supplied with the ST-70 production. Some of these were labeled as Dyna, and later as Dynaco. I believe that some of them were also branded as 'Sylvania'.
GE seems to have produced their own tubes, but some RCA versions carried the GE logo. Other combinations of actual production and applied brand names were extant.
All informed sources insist that there really is no substitute for the 7199. Any other tube is either subject to wiring alterations on the pins, or they constitute a compromise of what many observers claim was a tube that was already a sort of compromise in terms of how it was applied in the ST-70. This is the main reason why upgrade or updated boards employ a different tube complement, such as a cascoded triode for the driver tubes, and a separate triode for the inverter. The former emulates the pentode section. An overwhelming number hobbyists and professionals think that this is an effective update that is superior to the original configuration. Moreover, a number of tubes can be selected for the purpose — without altering the essential design very much.
In an effort to reduce the the parts count and keeps costs to a minimum, Dynaco settled on the 7199 pair. It produced the best cost/return ratio that could be constructed at the time. Some Dyna fans stick by the 7199 because they think that it provides the distinctive qualities of the stock ST-70 that they revere. Nevertheless, no one disputes that there is a difference between the updates and the original board, and the majority of users swear by later and numerous modifications.
Unless you change out the board for an updated version, or for one of the more radical redesigns of the driver section, you will be having to source NOS or used stocks of the 7199. I've been seeking info about substitutes for the 7199 for a long time — since I acquired my amp in 1988. There isn't one.
Recently, I have selected to rebuild my amp as close to stock. For that reason, I will continue to be in the way of the 7199. Later, I hope to build an ST-70 clone variant. Then I will have both a classic 70 and another that many people can perhaps quite rightly say is not an ST-70 at all. Classics in other fields have experienced similar developmental histories. For example, hardly anyone will argue that a Griffon engined Supermarine Spitfire F. 22 was the same aeroplane as the Merlin powered Mk II that flew in the Battle of Britain.
In IMHO, once you change the driver tubes, it is a slippery slope into the mod kitchen. And the recipes can easily and radically change the taste. I'm not advising purism — just observing.