I have long believed the 16th Century saw the emergence of artefacts such as weapons being made to popular 'styles' or 'patterns'.
From a commercial perspective it makes sense - if a particular style is popular then, as a maker, why would you
not make things that people want to buy? Just as with today, the popular styles would have been made in different qualities - finely made for those that could afford it; cheap-and-nasty knock-offs for those that wanted the popular look but couldn't afford it.
We know clothing and shoes were made this way; and even gravestones. There is nothing to suggest weapons were not made in this fashion, too.
For example, the basket-hilt swords found on the Mary Rose, at Southwark Bridge, the River Cam sword and the other examples in the Royal Armouries all share remarkably similar characteristics, without being identical. Another example: almost (if not) all the
bollock daggers found on the Mary Rose were of the same style, that style matching an example in Leeds.
I doubt this points to there being only one maker of a particular style; rather, given the fact that the extant artefacts represent a very small sample of all the items made, this would suggest a lot of makers fabricating items in the same style.
I can easily imagine 16th Century quartermasters purchasing swords in the same style but of differing qualities, to equip troops. To the lay observer it would present a uniform image without resorting to spending vast sums on high-end weapons. We know purchasers loathed spending any more money than was absolutely necessary.