In short, yes. Spanish steel, especially steel from Toledo, has had a reputation for quality that dates back to before it was conquered by Rome. Starting in the Iron Age, it was common for smiths to invent special techniques and methods for forging steel, which became carefully kept trade secrets. As a result, quality could differ greatly in weapons made in different regions, even if the smiths were similarly skilled.

Perhaps the most famous example of this sort of difference is in Damascus or Wootz steel, which was produced in Southern India, and attracted such attention that it still was famed for its quality in Europe, thousands of miles away. Toledo steel, while not equally famed, was far more accessible, and owning a weapon made by Toledo smiths would have been a significant status symbol.

Toledo swords owed their properties of high hardness without becoming brittle to the combination of a hard, high-carbon steel exterior around a softer iron core, which required careful work and expertise to make. Toledo blades were then carefully quality tested, as the reputation of a smith was what attracted the noble clientele that could afford such a laborious process. This meant that the swordsmiths who made such weapons were perhaps more artisans than mere craftsmen, and the few blades they produced were highly sought after.

That’s not to say all Spanish steel was better, however. While some of this expertise would be applicable to the mass produced weapons of the rank-and-file, most steel weapons produced outside this special method wouldn’t be significantly better than something that an English smith would make. Rather, a nobleman like the Sheriff would know and covet a Toledo blade, in part because it was as much a symbol of wealth and prestige as it was a deadly weapon that exhibited superior material qualities.