sure older lens designs aren't as sharp and didn't have loads of corrective lenses but they were simple
I don't agree. Ancient lenses were quite sharp and Petzval types were quite fast for their focal lengths, even by today's standards. Modern lenses have greater coverage, that's all. Ole Tjugen, who'd posted here a lot, used to argue that a decent Petzval or Aplanat used correctly produced sharper images than a decent modern anastigmat.
That old lenses aren't sharp is a canard based on lens abuse, i.e., using the lenses on formats larger than they were made to cover. Used as intended ancient Petzvals don't give the highly desirable nauseating swirlies.
Menisci such as you're working with have tiny coverage, i.e., circles of good definition, even at small apertures. If that's what you want, though, they may well be what you need.
I do suggest, though, that you calculate a little more and think more about your photographic ends. I have the impression that you're fascinated by selective focus, i.e., very narrow depth of field. Fine, wonderful. I suspect that y'r 1913 Zeiss London Tessar (a relative rarity, by the way) will give you the selective focus you want if shot wide open.
As my wife often tells me, what you're doing is harmless and keeps you out of worse trouble. I haven't lost sight of the fun factor or the joy of working things out for oneself so I'm not trying to talk you out of doing what you enjoy. Quite the contrary. By all means continue and have a good time.
Good luck, have fun, keep on reporting y'r progress,
Dan