I would say that adding another coil makes it a new and different motor, but it's a question of semantics. The basic design of a coreless motor suitable for use in a turntable has not changed since Dual invented it 60 years ago. If you look at the Dual motor compared to the Victor and Kenwood coreless motors, you might think they all come from the same source. I could also have included the Brinkmann coreless motor which is now only a few years old. The only really novel coreless motor in recent years is the Thingap motor used by VPI in their DD turntable.
Coreless motors inherently have lower torque than a similar size iron core motor and also tend to run hotter, which places a limitation on how much torque can be generated within size constraints. Adding a coil is one way to do it. Maybe that is also why the 10R platter will not be quite as massive as that of the Mk3. Also, consider that a large fraction of the mass of the Mk3 platter is the huge circular magnet structure (the rotor), attached to the underside. The 10R platter probably does not employ such a magnet, which alone could account for the difference in mass.
Coreless motors inherently have lower torque than a similar size iron core motor and also tend to run hotter, which places a limitation on how much torque can be generated within size constraints. Adding a coil is one way to do it. Maybe that is also why the 10R platter will not be quite as massive as that of the Mk3. Also, consider that a large fraction of the mass of the Mk3 platter is the huge circular magnet structure (the rotor), attached to the underside. The 10R platter probably does not employ such a magnet, which alone could account for the difference in mass.