[urbanspaceman]

Hey Jim, I think you have the answer there.
There may very-well have been the odd smiths in Britain producing decent blades.
Actually, there must have been, but not enough to supply entire armies.
Consequently, the commanders and the barons will have grabbed the cream of the crop and the munitions grades will have had to accept what they were given.
One thing I have realised - I am learning, just slowly - is that the sword was a secondary weapon with axes, lances, spears, (plus scythes Peter!) doing most of the work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but local barons et al. who supplied the king with militia when needed would not have spent money on quality swords for rank and file when inexpensive alternatives were always to hand.
As we know, a Crown financed standing army did not exist over here until Charles and James 2nd established one in the 1680s.