If any of you  

Wood filler?
My early DCM has holes like this on the backrest. A popular solution when they came unglued, is my understanding. I've been wondering if I should remove the bolts and fill the holes. Would it look good? I may just leave the bolts, though. It was owned by a single family since the 1950s, and I like that practicality that the holes convey.

Agreed
Leave it. I like artifacts like this. I know a guy who bought an old Eames DKR2 from an architect who welded caster on the feet. It looks ridiculous, but he kept it that way.

If I were in Dallas and that chair were on fire,
I wouldn't piss on it.
Seriously, once the back and seat have been drilled, is a beat-up old Herman Miller DCW better than any other beat-up old wooden kitchen chair?
I mean, I get that it has some sentimental value or rustic "honesty" or whatever, and it still has a nice silhouette (when the back's rightside-up, anyway)... But isn't a drilled DCW a bit like a beautiful silk wedding dress with a huge tear across the ass that's been repaired with duct tape? Or a Bubble lamp that someone's poked a finger through? Those items are still serviceable, but the essential thing that made them especially valuable -- the surface perfection -- is gone.

I don't
understand this ad at all. The chair is clearly not a "red" DCW -- it has never had a smidgeon of red paint or stain on it, as far as I can see. And the back is upside-down -- as someone has already alluded to.
I can say that, if Charles Eames had designed this chair with carriage bolts where they appear on this example -- or perhaps a slightly more sophisticated bolt-head ? -- I guess none of us would object, seeing it as the norm and the designer's choice: an admirably straightforward solution ?
But, of course, that is not the case -- and so we are understandably disgusted by the desecration of this example. . .

fastfwd,
I'm wondering if you ever put your feet up on your coffee table.

I wouldn't "object", really...
... but I also don't think I'd find the chair at all interesting. It's the invisible, flexible attachment method that makes the DCW and LCW special, I think.
Plus, while there are plenty of wooden chairs that use carriage bolts to fasten the seat and back to the frame -- everything from homebuilt Adirondacks to Prouve's Antony -- few are so poorly designed as to put the boltheads right on the user's spine... And I do object to THAT.

You make
good points about what makes the DCW beautiful. The bolts really do mar that. Below are pics of DCMs that are bolted like my chair. The bolts also detract, but I think less than the DCWs because they're all wood. And, personally, my DCM isn't in the best condition anyway. The family apparently took good care of it, but they used it, and the wear shows in some scratches on the seat, the missing Domes of Silence, a small veneer nick... The bolts seem to fit in. It's that "rustic honesty or whatever" you mentioned.

Brent
I think the DCM looks fine with the exposed bolts on the back; they appear to be far enough apart that they won't hit your spine, yet close enough that they also won't rub on your shoulderblades.
Plus, I agree with you that the DCM's metal frame seems much less compromised by the bolts than the DCW's wooden frame does. In fact, I'd go a step further and say that the bolts look "right" on the DCM's back. That is, I still think that the original glued shockmounts are more elegant and interesting, but as SDR suggested, if the chairs had originally been designed with those bolts, I wouldn't find the design objectionable. (I'm not sure I would say the same about bolts through the seat, though, on either the DCW OR the DCM.)
P.S.:

My Gawd...did you french brai...
My Gawd...did you french braid those Chucks??
ps sweet collection.

Thanks, Mark.
Yeah, I was bored one day in junior high school. Spent an entire class period playing with my shoelaces until they looked like that, and I've been lacing my Chucks that way ever since.