In this study, we adopt some simplifying approximations to make the problem more tractable. First, we focus on the methoxystannane series 12, 14, 18, and 22, because these compounds only have one potentially hypercoordinating substituent (the methoxyl O-atom) and are the simplest structurally of the model stannanes in this study (Figure ). Second, we assume that the most stable of the non-hypercoordinating conformers is the one with a fully extended propyl linker in an antimethoxyl conformation. Third, the calculated solution state Gibbs energies are used for estimating Boltzmann averaged properties for a set of conformers for a given compound. Because the conformers are substantially similar, their translational and rotational entropies are nearly identical and the overestimation cancels out in the Boltzmann averaging. On that basis, we consider the accuracy of the relative Gibbs energies in the solution calculations to be comparable to the gas phase ones. Fourth, we use the PBE0-GD3BJ DFT method, given its good performance in predicting solid state geometries. Each of the compounds has multiple hypercoordinate conformers. For 14, 18, and 22, the Sn substituent transto the hypercoordinating O-atom can vary (Ph and Cl or H) and there are also stable conformers with differing phenyl ring orientations. In hypercoordinate geometries, the methoxy-methyl can adopt an antior gaucheconformation with respect to C-2 of the propyl linkage. -3). The most stable conformer remains the same for each of the compounds, but the relative energies and fractional abundances of the conformers change (Table -2). The most stable hypercoordinate conformers for 12 and 22 are less stabilized relative to the extended conformers, while those of 14 and 18 are more so. Although the distribution of fractional abundances for the various conformers is similar with or without solvation, the differences are significant enough to influence the calculation of the 119Sn NMR chemical shifts.