I think you have to work out which part of "Mid-Century" you're leaning toward. If it's early-Mid-Century ( for example, the fifties) then I think the stained woodwork would be less desirable than painted. If it's late Mid-Century and you're going for a 70s vibe them I think stained woodwork was more common. Speaking as someone who lived through the 70s as a young women just setting up my first independent household,, I am always taken aback by the idea that that period is MCM. In my childhood -the true heyday of MCM - painted trim was the norm, often panted to same color as the walls. (And the trim was minimal.) But by the 70s, a backlash had formed and people started using stained woodwork, part of the back to "natural" movement. It was often ugly then, and it hasn't improved with age, I'm afraid. Way back in the day (pre-MCM) in the 20s and 30s stained trim was made from beautiful woods (not necessarily luxury woods, like mahogany, just beautiful pine and fir), usually with carefully chosen proportions. But in the 70's, stingy-width, ordinary ranch-style trim pieces were given a few quick coats of poly-stain and paired with highly contrasting wall colors. (Think kitchens with white slab doors and bars of contrasting wood trim along the top to serve as pulls and formica counters edged with stained wood. Hang a spider plant with macrame, and you're done.) The thing is that this was the outer reaches of MCM, after the style had been wrung dry and was already on life support. The stained woodwork phase was the last attempt to revivify it. It only needed Nancy Reagan to smother it all under glitzy red and teal chintz by the yard. Now, an Eames chair, egg chair, Paul McCobb, etc., those were the true MCM of the 50s-edging into the 60s. But by time the 70s rolled around it was different. I know I disdained my Mother's Paul McCobb dining room furniture then, though I was mad for Dansk, Marimeko and other Scandinavian stuff. (The McCobb stuff grew on me, so that when I eventually inherited I didn't send it off to Goodwill.) If you're going for any retro look, it really helps if you can train your eye to see what the style points truly were for the portion of the MCM period that appeals to you. You can lose your focus if you're thinking that MCM encompasses the whole period from after the War through to Nancy R. There were distinct , evolutionary stages along the way through. True 50s/60s-era MCM is a very attractive look, IMO. Things like the Eames and McCobb furniture will continue to stand up as excellent, enduring designs. I think those things will eventually be as sought after as period Georgian or Craftsman stuff is today. But when I think back to some of the 70s furniture (and I have to really think hard to even get pictures of it in my mind) the picture is not so clear. In reviewing your comment I see you mention reading that MCM lets the wood lines of the furniture show, but wonderng if that extends to the trim. I'd say, yes the wood lines of the furniture should show, but the trim not so much. And I think that keeping the trim painted allows the wood of the furniture to be more prominent. The walls (including trim) were the background for the wonderful lines of the stuff in the rooms. HTH L.

Franksmom, thanks for the tip on mixing styles. I hadn't heard that rule but it does fit in with the approach I am taking. There are multiple pieces I could have kept but I don't want MCM for MCM's sake. I want a very few select pieces that echo the era in which the house was built-- it is surely not by coincidence that the style and size of MCM furniture fits the size and scale of the rooms. I want to take advantage of what works best while bringing in some great design. I have been on the search for a few chairs to recover and for a dining table. I don't necessarily need "designer names" but I am seeing that the designer names have the lines and wood tones that really speak to me. If that means waiting a little longer for the stunning pieces that make a statement and set the tone, then I'll wait. The wood is very nice on the dresser-- much nicer than it looks in the photo. I think it will be fine in the LR. I will definitely remove/store the mirror. I do hope to replace the sofa sooner rather than later. I won't likely go with a very MCM style. I imagine a comfy sofa with square lines.. I'd love a velvet but budget is a concern at the moment. I am tempted by a velvet chesterfield sofa but much as I loooove it, it doesn't fit will with my plan.. well, at least not until I change it again! lol I know someone mentioned that the rug doesn't work at all. I do plan to replace that as well but I am just not clear on what I want on the floor. I have been leaning towards a pattern of grays and golds but I hesitate to start to narrowing down selections until I have everything in the room (and the walls painted, etc). I am open to suggestions though if someone has an idea of a pattern that straddles mcm and traditional. Thank you all .. I have put away the paint brush (for now).

Doing a white shag rug and white sheets isn't mcm. hopefully you've got other decor items in mind? However, the rug would work (although I'd like a flat weave black and white one better) and I would turn it the other way, and pull it down from the top just a bit. please get some sheets that fit! lol these striped ones would look nice w/a white comforter here are some examples. play around w/some of the decor items in these pictures. notice how the bed is made and what is on the bed. pick one and copy it. I like the rug in this pic, below, the danish style chair, and the dresser. you could also get a gentleman's chest like this and paint the lower half black

Don't feel bad. This is where most people start. They aren't quite sure what is wrong. So, they choose a couple of accessories and ask for help with those, thinking they will make that one change that will transform the room. Actually most of the threads here on houzz are like that: "What should I add to my mantle to finish it?" Meanwhile, I look around the room and no amount of anything on the mantle will help. Some people have the idea that designers are hap-hazardly flitting about, making decisions on the fly. No, a true designer uses a lot of math and planning. Imagine you had a friend who wanted you to take a look at her outfit for a very formal wedding she would be attending. She wanted, specifically, for you and other friends to look at her jewelry. So, she did a little fashion show for you. In, she came, clad in raggy jeans, a t-shirt, flip-flops and blue jewelry. Friends jumped in with differing opinions. Some thought the jewelry did not match the outfit. Others didn't like the style of the jewelry. Others thought is was perfect. You stood there wondering: well, the outfit itself is not appropriate for the occasion, so why are we focusing on the jewelry? Let's get the outfit straight first. Does it reflect who she is? Does it fit in with the occasion she will be attending. Is it comfortable on her? Does she love it? That is what a designer sees, but instead of an outfit, it is a room. You actually have some great pieces to work with.... and you are open-minded. That is the good news!