Was Apollos ever baptized in the name of Jesus? Regarding Apollos, the Bible states:

Acts 18:25 (ESV Strong's) 25 He had been instructed in the way of the
Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the
things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26
He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and
Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

However immediately after this episode we read of another set of believers only familiar with John's baptism who were then baptized in the name of Jesus:

Acts 19:3 (ESV Strong's) 3 And he said, “Into what then were you
baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John
baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe
in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing
this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Should we see these two episodes as complimentary and understand that Apollos was similarly baptized in the name of Jesus? Or should we instead see these as contrasts, and understand that Apollo was not again baptized?
I believe the question highlights an interesting point : that we should we see (by two different examples) that if someone is baptised (but in a limited way) then it is not essential that they be baptised again, but they could be.
After all, they have made a public profession through baptism which is one of the main features of baptism.
I say this because I was also baptised in a limited way and largely in ignorance, at the age of sixteen (over 50 years ago). But on later being received into a more enlightened congregation, they did not require me to be re-baptised.
However I had previously been 'christened' as an infant (although I remember it because, through circumstances, it was delayed until I was five) but I wanted to be baptised as an adult at the age of sixteen.
This was accepted by a congregation and they were willing to baptise me a second time, but as a converted adult. However, although sincere at the time, I was still very ignorant and I moved quickly from that congregation in my spiritual progress.
So, in the first case, I was 're-baptised' which was a necessary thing to do for doctrinal and fellowship reasons.
But in the second case I was not, for it was not deemed essential to do so.