> It seems massively unlikely.

Why? There were other talented people who produced masterful works at an early age. From the same time as this there's a Dürer self-portrait, also aged 12-13:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Portrait_at_the_Age_of_13

> We don't have any really reliable records from that time.

Uh, no. There's no documented attribution of that painting to Michelangelo; that doesn't mean that other things weren't reliably recorded.

▲

smokel 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That is slightly unconvincing. Durer is indeed a similar genius, but the complexity of that drawing is an order of magnitude lower than the painting.

Source: know how to draw really well.

	▲	zzzeek 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I came here to agree with you but then I had the good sense to read the original page which is at the Met (https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2009/michelan...), and has a lot of background on this painting, including that it WAS actually painted from an existing image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Temptation_of_St_Anthony_(... - worth a look to compare), so my primary skepticism "how could a kid even come up with that" makes a lot more sense that he had an existing image he was copying. https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2009/michelan...
	▲	11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

SoftTalker 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm no expert judge but I think there were kids in my middle school who could draw something like that. Certainly in high school.