I like the ones Patricia posted. Not only do they look more comfortable, and I can attest to rush seats because I have them, but they are more rounded . I have found that on a round table square seats rarely fit well. Something more rounded physically fits better and if you desire to squeeze more people in on occasion you're able to do so. With a square chair that isnt the case. I suppose the old adage of not fitting a square peg into a round hole may somewhat apply here.

Well, I'm a Kai Christensen fan, so the second one sort of resembles his iconic z chair, though thicker.. And, it might give you problems with the arm vs table height. Both are beautiful. Good luck in your choice. I don't think a padded back makes a big difference in dining chairs.

I like the ones that match the table. You can make them special with your choice of seat pads. Pottery Barn

Yes, it’s veneer, just like 90% of MCM furniture made in the 60s is. The restoration company is very familiar and skilled at doing restoration jobs such as ours. I believe the original color was Teak, but it could have been Walnut, hard to say for sure. The restoration company took one of our chairs and they’re 100% able to match it up - so that you cannot tell. The chair is more brown than teak, I forget what the restorer guy said, maybe something ”nut” - i’ll ask. We also have a dark walnut fireplace on tbe opposite side of the room, which is why if this is actually walnut veneer, that was at some point re-stained years ago to look teak (walnut is not uncommon for the 60s too), we could do that too as an option, and it would help balance the room a little. But then we also have teak furniture on that side of the room too, so maybe that doesn't make sense… FYI - getting a new rug and couch will eventually be replaced with reupholstered MCM couch.