Recent work has attempted to enhance vector space representations using information from structured semantic resources. This process, dubbed retrofitting (Faruqui et al., 2015), has yielded improvements in word similarity performance. Research has largely focused on the retrofitting algorithm, or on the kind of structured semantic resources used, but little research has explored why some resources perform better than others. We conducted a fine-grained analysis of the original retrofitting process, and found that the utility of different lexical resources for retrofitting depends on two factors: the coverage of the resource and the evaluation metric. Our assessment suggests that the common practice of using correlation measures to evaluate increases in performance against full word similarity benchmarks 1) obscures the benefits offered by smaller resources, and 2) overlooks incremental gains in word similarity performance. We propose root-mean-square error (RMSE) as an alternative evaluation metric, and demonstrate that correlation measures and RMSE sometimes yield opposite conclusions concerning the efficacy of retrofitting. This point is illustrated by word vectors retrofitted with novel treatments of the FrameNet data (Fillmore and Baker, 2010).