Just a second thought -

60mm was generlly the shortest focal length made in wide-angles around 1910. Later on, with the increasing popularity of rollfilm, shotrer lenses were made as well (but not to my knowledge Hypergons or WA Protars, although B&L may have made some. Zeiss at least didn't, I think).

But for 60mm on 6x9 you need only about 80 of coverage, which is well withing the range of many other lenses when well stopped down. Since you're after "fuzziness", there should be no need for a $1000+ lens? Most 75-80mm lenses for old 6x6-6x4.5 folders will give fuzzy images on 6x9 at f:22 or so if you avoid the "better" ones - a Tessar will not cover, but an Eurynar should. In general the slowest lenses have the biggest coverage - an f:3.5 lens will probably not cover, a f:6.8 most likely will. So look for cheap old cameras (with slower, softer lenses) in smaller sizes - you could buy a lot of these for even the price of a Protar.
I'm not certain of the coverage of triplet lenses - they weren't very common in Germany at the beginning of last century. I have reason to believe the coverage may be markedly less than the anastigmats?