This is the mss that I based my script for The Second Coming piece on. It's from a Dominican Breviary from the last quarter of the 15th century, in Alsace, where ever that is. It appears on page 139 of Bologna's Illuminated Manuscripts
Even tho I was basing my layout and illumination on the 42 line Gutenberg Bible, I couldn't base my script analysis on it, because it was printed, not written, so I chose this one.
I remember that I should have referred to 2 or 3 mss, but that seems to have got lost by the wayside somewhere.

I was told that the x-height in my Second Coming piece was 'squat' and my a/d too short. I agree.

I just did a quick bit of measuring with my ruler. The x-height in the mss is 4 mm, a/d 2 mm. P/w is slightly less than 1 mm

Measuring on the Second Coming, x-height is 4 mm, a/d 1 mm, p/w is 1 mm.

That'd be the problem then.
A mistake with the ascender/descender height, plus using a pen that was too broad - even 1/4 mm is going to make a difference when dealing with measurements that small. I did try a smaller nib width but I didn't like the thicks and thins I was getting - not distinct enough. I guess that being more distinct comes down to me maintaining my pen angle and keeping my pen upright.

I wonder how I made such a mistake with the a/d height? In the notes on the script analysis in my project book, I've got a/d height listed as being 50% of x-height, then that is crossed out and 25% written in instead. Simply a bodgy re-measurement, I guess.

It would have helped if I'd simply gone back and compared the appearance of what I was writing to the original mss. I would have picked up the problem then.

It kind of sounds like I'm beating myself up. I'm not. I'm glad to figure out the reasons for the problem with the script. Feel like a bit of an idiot, but ..... live and learn :-)