A 60 year old turntable design is still going strong!

Right. That's why I said it isn't a weight, and put scare quotes around "weight". Technically it is a weight. It has mass. Or it would float away. But only a little. So not a weight. Not in the normal sense everyone means.  

Origin Live https://www.originlive.com/ has a number of interesting products besides turntables and tone arms. https://www.originlive.com/hi-fi-accessories/  

Technically the Gravity One is a damper. But to call it that is only about as accurate as to call it a record weight.   

As Mark Baker told me, the key to both the platter mat and the Gravity One is to achieve a balance between holding the record firmly and at the same time allowing vibrations to flow into the mat and weight. Even more  important and even harder to achieve is to have this happen uniformly across the frequency band.     
So the Gravity One is a complex design. It feels funny in your hand. It looks normal, but look underneath- https://www.originlive.com/hi-fi/turntable-upgrades-modification/turntable-record-weight-best/ That is NOT normal! Impossible to tell from the pictures but those pieces are not rigidly attached. The three rings are not rigidly coupled but move slightly. The hole in the center is quite a bit larger than a spindle. It is designed to help center but to be uncoupled from the spindle.   

Another interesting feature, the Gravity One touches the record only at a small triangular area near the center. This review has some of the best images. Scroll down to check out the side view showing how little area touches the record. https://www.originlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Paul-Rigby-Record-Weight-Review-2020.pdf 

I used the Gravity One on my Teres Miller Carbon table before setting up the Sovereign. I have tried a lot of other record clamps and weights. The comments in this review are right on. The Gravity one is on another plane.

Well I just must weigh in here.  Chakster has it right, the AR turntable was a terrible design.  Specifically the problem was the arm.  It had too much friction.  Cartridges and records wore unevenly because of this problem.  I was in the business for most of the decade of the 1970s and looked at literally hundreds of these using Wild-Heerbrugg M5 microscopes (I still own one) to examine the stylli, an O-scope, usually a McIntosh, and test records to optimize set up etc.  Stylii invariably wore unevenly on AR turntables.  The arm was the problem, the rest of the AR turntable was excellent.  Thorens was the first to come up with a better solution with their TD-150 and later the even better TD-125.  Many other companies also came up with better players.  The better changers of the era from Dual and Miracord also outperformed the AR at least in the arm department.  Again, to repeat, I looked at hundreds of these things over a decade, using the best available microscope and excellent test equipment.  This is not onesy-twosey anecdotal testimony.  If you think otherwise you are living in a dream world.

Interesting that the AR TT has come up.  MF included a very favorable mention of the AR TT in his most recent column in SP.  Prices will probably rise going forward.

The AT TT has to be one of the most influential TT designs sold over the past 60 years.  Very inexpensive, built to a reasonable standard,  and it still outperforms many tables with much higher prices of entry.

What many don't realize is that AR was not the first manufacturer to use spring suspension isolation combined with a T Bar subchassis for location of the platter bearing and tonearm.

The London Scott TT from the mid-late 50's used a very similar suspension design, but also used a very complex worm gear drive to control speed and platter rotation.

The Weathers TT and integral tonearm were highly regarded in the late 50s.  It also used a spring suspension and a lightweight clock motor for power.  It differed by using rim drive through a very soft rubber tire mounted on the motor spindle, and then driving the platter through contact with the inner edge surface.

Mr. Villchur was no doubt aware of these TT when he designed the AR.  His focus on isolation let him to decouple the motor from the platter through use of belt drive, which simplified the drive mechanism.  He included an integral tone arm that could track lightly and made the package very affordable.  

Many point to the tonearm as the weak link.  In some ways it is.  It seems simple, even crude.  But it is capable of excellent performance when carefully adjusted.  The horizontal bearing was simple, well engineered and worked as need.  Vertical bearings were delrin needle points that screwed into the arm yolk and could be adjusted for tension.  I can tell you from experience that adjusting these bearings "just so" is crucial for best performance.  Adjustment of these bearings is what located the arm in the vertical plane.  A minor deviation from dead center would have audible consequences.  Get it right, and you have an arm of surprisingly good performance.  It is capable of accurate tracking at 1g, without inner groove distortion.   Cartridge alignment can be difficult because the entire arm tube has to be adjusted to set alignment, but that is easy enough if you know what to do and have patience.   The real problem is most people (and techs) did not know or care enough to carefully adjust the bearings !   Simple, surprising, and true.

How good and influential was the AR TT ?   It directly led to the Thorens TD150, which led to the LINN LP12, VPI and many other decks that are remarkable similar to the basic AR design.  Differences are in parts quality and execution- not design changes.

A long time ago I had an AR TT. Also a Lenco. Both were $99.
An even older and venerable design by at least a decade is the unsuspended Garrard 301. It took until 2 years ago to acquire a Woodsong 301. It is the heart and soul of my current system. But I don’t know of an AR rebuild that is in the same arena as newly built Lenco or Garrard.

My VPI HW ML II is 36 years old.