Thank-you Gentlemen, an abundance of pertinent information.
Initially, let me flag the info regarding lead rolling mills, as Vintner was descended from a family of lead mining and processing engineers.
Incidentally, many have posited that Vintner was German, but I can find no trace anywhere, anytime of that name being present in Germany (if anybody can, then I will be well pleased); however, I can find Vinton used commonly in Sweden and occasionally in Scandinavia generally, hence my suggestion that he was probably Swedish. The 'Ingenious Artisans' that Queen Elizabeth instructed to 'find, mine and process metals countrywide' were not from Germany alone.
Secondly, and just as a side issue: I don't know how many of you have ever witnessed white-hot sheet-metal coming out of a rolling-mill ? It is very scary, especially if you are standing on one of those gantries near the coiling machine (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuuP8L-WppI).
However, in order to roll the shape of a Biscayne blade (are we going to call it that now?) you do-not/cannot use speed, it has to be done slowly with a varied degree of pressure; at least if you are using the machine that I conceived yesterday, which has three round edged wheels (one wider than the other two) that are of varying width around the circumference (which equals the length of the blade) and all three pointing into a central gap through which the hot metal rod is inserted then extruded; the wheels are mounted on axles that are spring loaded and simultaneously turned slowly by hand.
A picture is worth a thousand words, I know, but I'm sure you will understand what I am getting at if you are of a mechanical mind-set.
Incidentally, and apropos of Mat's video: he talks about 15th C. hollow blades, which are a revelation to me; does anyone have any information on these swords?
Also, he keeps referring to 'Hollow Ground' which is a terminology that unfortunately seems to predominate and is probably responsible for the notion that the 'Machine' was a grinding machine and not a rolling mill of sorts. Perhaps those 15th C. blades were hand ground; I suspect it is more likely they were beaten into shape on an anvil former.
But
In regard to this particular thread I have to say that the Shotley Bridge story may never be written with a veracity cast in stone, as there is constantly emerging pertinent material - when you go looking, that can potentially turn all of the collected written word on its head. For example, apart from chiselling Shotley Bridge or stamping the crossed swords or bridge symbol, I don't know how to establish one way or the other at this present moment that SB, and in particular Oley, eventually used the bushy tailed fox; or, for that matter, if they ever used the Passau wolf or, if anyone outside of Germany ever used the Passau wolf; rather than us buying imported blades already stamped.
All I can do is find out as much as I can and sometimes best guess when accuracy is not mandatory: as with Vinting being Swedish not German, for example. How much effort needs to be put into establishing that as a cast-iron fact? Unlike the bushy tailed fox, how much does it ultimately matter?
Establishing what are the subjects demanding hard facts is, in itself, a demanding, and open to question, endeavour. For example:
Have we reached a point where we can accept that the principle shaping of a hollow blade was not by grinding wheel but by rolling or hammering?
Have we reached a point where we can accept that Shotley Bridge did not employ any machine for producing quantities of hollow blades? Or that they ever actually produced such blades?
Could we accept that doing so may never have been their intention when they brought the nineteen families over?
Instead, that those families arrived to deal with huge demands for battle-field blades from the Jacobites et al, and the hollow-blade project remained as a politically necessary subterfuge by the original syndicate, and then a financially expedient coverall by the South Sea Company?
And on and on
Isn't this fun?!