FWIW, young Rioja and Ridge both strike me as oaky although I like older examples. One of the reasons I dropped off the Monte Bello list this year is I don’t really like drinking it young. Different strokes.
-Al
Completely respect that, pondering a similar decision based on age and wine aging. Just saying that, for my tastes, I don’t perceive the oak in Monte Bello to be nearly as strong or overwhelming as a lot of big name Napa Cabs.
My earlier point was that it surprises me when people who don’t much care for strong oak in their wine don’t object similarly to strong peat in whisky, or strong hops in beer. To me, they all have a similar impact: masking the underlying flavors and intricacies of the beverage.
But of course people should drink what they like.
A more middle of the road Islay might be Bunnahabhain. But non Islay probably best.
I’d add Edradour to the other suggestions and +1 on Glenlivet 15.
Bruichladdich must win some prize for most bottlings. The non peat comment is interesting I thought they were mainlining peat. I think I’ve also seen them bottling other distilleries whiskies in their cask program. (Bordeaux casks etc).
I would go w kilchoman personally.
CG, you seem spot on. Johnny Walker Blue is the Silver Oak of Scotch.
I’d call it the grey goose or patron of scotch. Perceived top shelf brand, which is good, and generally enjoyable, but not particularly profound.
Haven’t tried it, but today I picked up a btl of the Kilchoman Original Cask Strength. Psyched to give it a shot. Which is your favorite of their bottlings?
I like the sherry cask, it’s pretty rare but I got a bottle of it, I also have a bottle of their sauternes cask finish but haven’t opened that one yet. I liked the original cask strength, i got a bottle at the wally’s sale for ~60.
My earlier point was that it surprises me when people who don’t much care for strong oak in their wine don’t object similarly to strong peat in whisky, or strong hops in beer. To me, they all have a similar impact: masking the underlying flavors and intricacies of the beverage.
But of course people should drink what they like.
It surprises me when people who don’t like oaky Cabernets assume others with the same preference must also share their preferences about Islay Scotches because they aren’t able to distinguish the nuances (albeit without actually having tried them for many years).
But, of course people should drink what they like. 
Lagavulin, Talisker, Laphroig, Ardberg are all peaty whiskys and all different and it’s possible to love a couple of them but not the others. Within a producer’s line, the different releases share a family style but are clearly distinguishable. The truth is there are plenty of people who don’t like oaky Cabernets but who do enjoy Islay whiskies and are even able to detect the underlying flavors and intricacies. No reason why you should like them, of course.
-Al
You can count me among those who dislike heavy oak in wine but have no problem with Islay whisky. Also, I don’t consider most Lagavulin or Laphroaig, among others, to be “ultra-peated” at all, certainly not in comparison with the Octomore monsters and that ilk which can smell like crime scenes, and which I do not enjoy. I usually find heavily oaked wine to be out of balance, whereas judicious peat does not throw great whisky out of balance, for me. Some old Ardbegs, for instance, are some of the greatest whiskies of all times, with beautiful balance and stunning complexity. And plenty of peat.
That would be me. Don’t like oak in wine (and just cannot tolerate it at all in a white), but love Islays, and am happy with an oaky Bourbon.
You can count me among those who dislike heavy oak in wine but have no problem with Islay whisky. Also, I don’t consider most Lagavulin or Laphroaig, among others, to be “ultra-peated” at all, certainly not in comparison with the Octomore monsters and that ilk which can smell like crime scenes, and which I do not enjoy. I usually find heavily oaked wine to be out of balance, whereas judicious peat does not throw great whisky out of balance, for me. Some old Ardbegs, for instance, are some of the greatest whiskies of all times, with beautiful balance and stunning complexity. And plenty of peat.
You were one of the Scotch drinkers who came to mind. I haven’t tried Octomore, they sound like the equivalent of some of the beers from the ultra-hoppy, top this IPA wars. To me, Laphroaig’s signature note isn’t so much peat as the briny seaweed and iodine.
-Al
That would be me. Don’t like oak in wine (and just cannot tolerate it at all in a white), but love Islays, and am happy with an oaky Bourbon.
To me, the peat in a whisky is more transparent than heavy oak in a wine. I like some Bourbon, but generally prefer Scotch in part because of the oak in the former. But, it’s just my preference.
-Al
Love the bolded line above!
I am also in this camp; transparency is quite different between the two. For Islay and other regions to a lesser extent, peat is also terroir whereas oak is normally not.
And Al nails it on Laphroiag; once you get out of the car at the distillery parking lot by their little cove, you immediately understand exactly why Laphroaig smells and tastes as it does. 
+3, in bolded Ardbeg green. Distillery character varies quite a bit, attributable in no small way to peat: Ardbeg/creosote, Laphroaig/turfy and earthy, Lagavulin/campfire, Talisker/pepper.
In my opinion, some Islay whiskies have lost much of their distillery character since they (mostly) abandoned their own floor maltings and use purchased Port Ellen malt. As a result, young Islay whiskies from Ardbeg, Caol Ila, Octomore are often largely indistinguishable from one another and lack their historic terroir/distillery character.
How about some non oaky non peaty recommendations?
Sadly true. It’s almost like using the same grapes that everyone else uses, fermented in the same winery with the same yeast…
I see that this was an old thread, but it seems like a good place for this comment. It’s always odd to me when people ask for Scotch suggestions for gifts, without knowing the recipient’s preferences, and there are inevitable suggestions for peaty Islay whiskies. I absolutely hate Lagavulin, Laphroaig, etc., and MANY people who like lots of other Scotch are in the same boat. Those whiskies are undrinkable to me and to many other people who are far more sensitive to those flavors than the people recommending them. Maybe it’s the retailer in me, but I can’t help thinking there’s a very significant chance that the recipient of such a Scotch would be extremely unhappy with it.
This aligns with my POV…and count me as a JWB fan.
“There is a paradigm that has been established over the past two decades in mature markets like Japan, the U.K., and the U.S. that malts are good and blends are bad. Which clearly is not true,” says Dave Broom, a prolific whisky writer and author of a book called Whisky: the Manual.
There are a few issues contributing to this perception, the first being that many people don’t understand the difference between blended scotch and single malts and what each brings to the table.
Comparing scotch blends with malts is like comparing apples and oranges. They are not supposed to be the same. A single malt is made with malted barley in pot stills at a single distillery. The goal is to achieve very distinctive flavors and nuances that exemplify a single distillery’s style. A blended scotch whisky is made by combining several single malts with wheat and/or corn whiskies in column stills. The goal is to create a smooth and versatile product that allows various styles of whisky to dance harmoniously together in a glass. In a blend, the grain is as important as the malt. It is the “glue that holds often flaky single malts together,” as Broom puts it.”
I cannot recall ever tasting a blend that satisfied me sufficiently, that I wanted to acquire more of it. They all strike me as bland and homogenous.